State v. Gleason
| Decision Date | 20 June 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 275,275 |
| Citation | 1969 NMCA 54,80 N.M. 382,456 P.2d 215 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ray L. GLEASON and Raymond Lawrence Kilroy, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendants were charged by information filed in the district court of Colfax County on March 29, 1967, with receiving stolen property of the value of more than $100.00 and not more than $2,500.00, contrary to the provisions of § 40A--16--11, N.M.S.A.1953. This charged offense is a fourth degree felony.
On April 12, 1967, defendants were charged by information filed in the district court of Union County with larceny of this same property, contrary to the provisions of § 40A--16--1, N.M.S.A.1953, and with burglary, contrary to the provisions of § 40A--16--3, N.M.S.A.1953. The offenses of larceny and burglary as charged were each fourth degree felonies.
Colfax and Union Counties are in the same judicial district, the district courts therein are presided over by the same district judge, and they are served by the same district attorney.
Upon trial by jury in Colfax County during May 1967, on the charge of receiving stolen property, defendants were found guilty, convicted and sentenced.
The trial court in the Union County case dismissed the count charging larceny, upon the ground that defendants could not be both the thieves and the receivers of the same stolen property. This is in accord with the majority rule. Heinze v. State, 184 Md. 613, 42 A.2d 128 (Ct.App.1945); State v. Meshaw, 246 N.C. 205, 98 S.E.2d 13 (1957); Annot., 18 A.L.R.3d 259, 322--326 (1968); Annot., 16 A.L.R.3d 866 (1967).
Upon the trial of the burglary charge in Union County, the evidence was that defendants personally made an unauthorized entry of a structure with the intent to commit a theft therein. The essential element of intent to commit a theft therein was established by evidence showing the taking and asportation by defendants of the same property of which they had been convicted of receiving. There was no evidence to indicate that anyone other than defendants was in any way involved in the unauthorized entry or in the taking and asportation of the stolen property.
Thus, defendants of necessity were found to have committed the actual theft of the same property for which they had previously been convicted of receiving.
It is generally held that upon the trial of a defendant, who is charged in separate counts of a single indictment or information with receiving stolen property and with larceny, the State cannot convict of receiving stolen property, which of necessity implies two actors--the thief and the receiver from the thief--and also convict for larceny, if the identical property is involved in both convictions. Territory v. Graves, 17 N.M. 241, 125 P. 604 (1912); People v. Taylor, 4 Cal.App.2d 214, 40 P.2d 870 (1935). See also, in addition to the foregoing cited cases, Bargesser v. State, 95 Fla. 404, 116 So. 12 (1928); Fletcher v. State, 231 Md. 190, 189 A.2d 641 (Ct.App.1963).
It is our opinion that the State cannot convict a person under...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Woods v. State
...would be no doubel jeopardy. State v. Goodson, supra; State v. Anaya, 83 N.M. 672, 495 P.2d 1388 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Gleason, 80 N.M. 382, 456 P.2d 215 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Mares, The claim of double jeopardy goes outside the record in State v. Woods, supra, and thus the 'files and r......
-
People v. Warne
...necessarily was based upon a fact which negatives the possibility of guilt in the later prosecution. (See e.g., State v. Gleason, 80 N.M. 382, 456 P.2d 215, 216 (1969), where the conviction of receiving stolen property precluded subsequent burglary conviction since both crimes involved thef......
-
State v. Tapia
...New Mexico Decisions The prior New Mexico decisions are Territory v. Graves, 17 N.M. 241, 125 P. 604 (1912) and State v. Gleason, 80 N.M. 382, 456 P.2d 215 (Ct.App.1969). The statute in Graves prohibited buying, receiving or aiding in the concealment of stolen property. Graves held that 'wh......
-
State v. Upchurch
...could not be both a thief of stolen property and a receiver of that same property. See id.; State v. Gleason, 1969-NMCA-054, ¶ 8, 80 N.M. 382, 456 P.2d 215 (recognizing that a defendant cannot be convicted of both larceny and receiving stolen property for stealing property and receiving the......