State v. Gomez
Decision Date | 05 February 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 548,548 |
Citation | 1971 NMCA 9,82 N.M. 333,481 P.2d 412 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel D. GOMEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence rendered pursuant to a jury verdict finding him guilty of taking a vehicle intentionally and without the consent of the owner in violation of § 64--9--4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2). We affirm.
Three points are relied upon for reversal. The first point as stated by defendant is:
'Defendant's conviction should be reversed because his trial was prejudiced by his being observed in handcuffs by members of the jury prior to the beginning of trial and during recess.'
Defendant says that his attorney Both of these motions were denied. * * *' The question, in substance, is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying either or both of the motions.
It is not contended that defendant was in handcuffs in the courtroom at any time during jury selection or trial. Territory of New Mexico v. Kelly, 2 N.M. 292, 37 Pac.States Repts. 292 (1882), cited and relied upon by defendant, does not seem to us to support his position. In Kelly, the court, in reciting the facts after pointing out that the defendant was in irons, said:
'In the present case, had the irons remained on the prisoner during his trial, or for any considerable portion thereof, we would be compelled under this rule to reverse the judgment; but as it appeared from the record that they so remained but for an inconsiderable time, while a few only of the jurors were being called and examined, and before any of them had been accepted and sworn, * * *'
Upon this fact statement, the court concluded '* * * we are of the opinion that the prisoner's rights of defense were not prejudicially affected thereby to an extent that will justify a reversal of the judgment on that ground.'
It appears to us that the possibility of prejudice, as disclosed by the facts in the present case, was substantially less than that considered in Kelly.
We are in accord with the holding of the Supreme Court of Arizona involving a factual situation and contention, both comparable to those presented here, wherein the following appears:
* * *'
State v. Sherron, 105 Ariz. 277, 463 P.2d 533 (1970). We do not find an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in denying either or both of defendant's motions.
By his second point defendant asserts:
'The admission of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence that defendant wrecked the automobile he was accused of taking and that he refused medical treatment so deprived him of due process of law that his conviction should be reversed despite the fact that no objection was made below.'
The record reflects that, upon being questioned by a prosecutor, the owner of the automobile allegedly taken by the defendant tesfified:
Defendant concedes that no objection was made to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Isiah
...the question of his guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.' " State v. Gomez, 82 N.M. 333, 335, 481 P.2d 412, 414 (1971), (quoting State v. Torres, 78 N.M. 597, 435 P.2d 216 We are not persuaded that these comments rise to the level of fun......
-
State v. Holly
...defendant was inadvertently seen by up to three jurors when he was escorted from the courtroom in handcuffs); State v. Gomez, 82 N.M. 333, 334, 481 P.2d 412, 413 (Ct.App.1971) (holding that a defendant's rights were not sufficiently prejudiced to justify a new trial when jurors viewed defen......
-
State v. Aguirre, 9490
...the knife constitutes fundamental error. He relies upon State v. Sluder, 82 N.M. 755, 487 P.2d 183 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Gomez, 82 N.M. 333, 481 P.2d 412 (Ct.App.1971); Territory of New Mexico v. Kelly, 2 N.M. 292 In the Sluder case the defendant claimed error on the ground the sheriff ha......
-
State v. Orosco
...that the jury's inadvertent view of defendant after being released for dinner did not warrant a mistrial. See State v. Gomez, 82 N.M. 333, 481 P.2d 412 (Ct.App.1971). In either event, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the 7. New Trial Also pursuant to Frankl......