State v. Garcia.
| Decision Date | 19 March 1920 |
| Docket Number | No. 2422.,2422. |
| Citation | 188 P. 1104,26 N.M. 70 |
| Parties | STATEv.GARCIA. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
In applying for a continuance, a party, in showing efforts constituting due diligence used in obtaining witnesses, must state facts with such definiteness and certainty that the court may determine whether they amount to legal diligence.
The motion for continuance must show some probability of procuring absent witnesses or testimony, should the continuance be granted.
The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is in the sound discretion of the court, and unless such discretion has been abused, to the injury of the party applying therefor, the denial does not constitute error.
Where the evidence establishes the forgery of a bank check, it is wholly immaterial as to whether the check was ever presented for payment or not.
Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; D. J. Leahy, Judge.
Max Garcia was convicted of forgery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Where the evidence establishes the forgery of a bank check, it is wholly immaterial as to whether it was ever presented for payment.
C. N. Higgins, of East Las Vegas, for appellant.
O. O. Askren, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted of forgery and appeals. He relies upon two grounds for a reversal:
First, that the court erred in overruling his motion for a continuance. This motion was based upon the absence of two material witnesses, one of whom he alleged lived near the town of Caspar, Wyo., and the other resided in Taos county, this state. The facts which such witnesses were expected to testify to were set forth in the affidavit, but the affidavit was deficient in two particulars: (1) It did not set forth the efforts which had been put forth by appellant to obtain such witnesses. In fact, the affidavit contained no showing whatever of diligence; appellant stating simply that he had not had sufficient time to get in touch with the said witnesses and have them at the trial.
[1] A party, in showing efforts constituting due diligence used in obtaining absent witnesses, must state facts with such definiteness and certainty that the court may determine whether they amount to legal diligence. Territory v. Anderson, 4 N. M. (Gild.) 213, 13 Pac. 21. The courts uniformly require the parties who ask a continuance on the ground of absent witnesses to show due diligence to procure the attendance of such witnesses. 13 C. J. 155.
[2][3] The application was also insufficient, in that it did not state facts showing reasonable grounds of belief that the attendance of said alleged absent witnesses would be procured at the next term. Appellant stated that he believed he could have said two witnesses in attendance and testify at the next term, but he set forth no facts upon which he based his belief. The motion for continuance must show some probability of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Weber
...with intent to injury or defraud had been accomplished, and an injury or loss need with intent to injure or defraud had been 26 N.M. 70, 188 P. 1104; State v. Smith, 32 N.M. 191, 252 P. 1003; Hurst v. State, 1 Ala.App. 235, 56 So. 18; State v. Laborde, 120 La. 136, 45 So. 38; People v. Esri......
-
State v. Plummer.
...222, L.R.A.1917A, 1226; State v. Pruett, 22 N.M. 223, 160 P. 362, L.R.A.1918A, 656; State v. Starr, 24 N.M. 180, 173 P. 674; State v. Garcia, 26 N.M. 70, 188 P. 1104; State v. Kelly, 27 N.M. 412, 202 P. 524, 21 A.L.R. 156; State v. Renner, 34 N.M. 154, 279 P. 66; State v. Romero, 34 N.M. 49......
-
1997 -NMCA- 37, State v. Nguyen
...taken by the recipient to verify the writing. State v. Ruffins, 109 N.M. 668, 671, 789 P.2d 616, 619 (1990); see State v. Garcia, 26 N.M. 70, 72, 188 P. 1104, 1104 (1920). As in Ruffins, the act in this case is no less criminal because the forgery was detected before money changed ¶17 For t......
-
State v. Ruffins
...complete when the false instrument is issued or transferred with the requisite intent, regardless of its acceptance. State v. Garcia, 26 N.M. 70, 72, 188 P. 1104 (1920); 37 C.J.S. Forgery Sec. 3 (1943). Our forgery statute does not require that the defendant gain, or that the prospective vi......