State v. Griego

Decision Date15 February 1956
Docket NumberNo. 6004,6004
Citation294 P.2d 282,61 N.M. 42,1956 NMSC 25
PartiesSTATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Leopoldo V. GRIEGO, Appellant.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

Dean S. Zinn, Frank B. Zinn, Santa Fe, for appellant.

Richard H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., Santiago E. Campos, Fred M. Standley, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.

COMPTON, Chief Justice.

Appellant was convicted by a jury of Sante Fe County of the crime of voluntary manslaughter and he appeals.

The offense occurred on the afternoon of January 1, 1955. Appellant, Francisco Gonzales, the deceased, Eusebio Mueller, Patricio Mueller and Alfonso Mueller began celebrating the New Year early and continued to consume intoxicating liquor from time to time until about 2:00 P.M. when the party went to the home of appellant where they engaged in dancing. For some unexplained reason appellant and his wife were involved in a scuffle and he pushed her. Her head struck the door and began to bleed slightly. Patricio Mueller, seeing the blood on Mrs. Griego, made inquiry of appellant why he had struck her. In response, appellant stated to Patricio Mueller that he would also strike him, whereupon, appellant was knocked down by Patricio. While lying on the floor, Mrs. Griego attempted to tie his hands, but was unsuccessful. He was then assisted to his feet and placed on a table in another room the kitchen. He sat there for a short while, then returned to the living room and ordered everyone out of the house. Patricio Mueller refused but was forcibly ejected. Appellant engaged in another scuffle and Gonzales was seen to fall to the floor. He was immediately taken to St. Vincent Hospital but was dead upon arrival. There was a sharp cut, smooth edge wound just below the collar bone of the upper left chest. A post-mortem examination showed a deep wound, penetrating the heart.

About 5:00 P.M. appellant and his wife were taken into custody. They were first taken to the county jail and then to the District Attorney's office where they were questioned. At first appellant maintained his innocence but later confessed. The written confession, in part, reads:

'Patricio Mueller and I got in a fight, when he hit me, I was drunk, I became blind with anger and I picked up a knife to cut him. I threw some blows with the knife and as I was drunk and blind with anger I don't know who I cut or stabbed.'

The sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of voluntary manslaughter is the first question. It is asserted that 'sudden quarrel or heat of passion', essential elements of the crime of voluntary manslaughter, must be provoked by the party slain. It may well be that the deceased did nothing to provoke appellant's anger but this does not excuse his unlawful act. Where, in the execution of an intent to do wrong, an unintended illegal act ensues as a natural and probable consequence, the unintended act follows the wrongful intent. And, if a person intends to kill one person and unintentionally kills another, his guilt or innocence is to be determined as though the fatal act had caused the death of the person against whom the act was directed. Bolen v. Commonwealth, 265 Ky. 456, 97 S.W.2d 1; People v. Ortiz, 320 Ill. 205, 150 N.E. 708; State v. Chavez, 85 Mont. 544, 281 P. 352; Jackson v. State, 69 Ga.App. 707, 26 S.E.2d 485.

The argument is made that the evidence shows appellant to be guilty of second degree murder, if anything. In this regard, he cannot complain of evidence of a higher degree of homicide than that of which he was convicted. The statute, Sec. 41-13-1, 1953 Comp., is controlling.

A strenuous effort is made by appellant to escape the consequences of the confession. He contends that the discomfort of his wife while she was in custody induced his confession. This contention cannot be sustained. As previously stated, he and his wife were taken into custody about 5:00 P.M. They were placed in separate rooms and repeatedly questioned during the night. Not only did they maintain their innocence but...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Coffin
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 6 Octubre 1999
    ...State v. Gutierrez, 88 N.M. 448, 451, 541 P.2d 628, 631 (Ct.App.1975)). Coffin, however, contends that our opinion in State v. Griego, 61 N.M. 42, 294 P.2d 282 (1956), stands for the principle that transferred intent applies to voluntary manslaughter. See generally 1 Wayne R. LaFave & Austi......
  • Gladden v. State
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • 23 Diciembre 1974
    ...v. State, 252 Miss. 652, 173 So.2d 904 (1965); Dykes v. State, 232 Miss. 379, 99 So.2d 602 (1957).26 New Mexico: State v. Griego, 61 N.M. 42, 294 P.2d 282 (1956); State v. Carpio, 27 N.M. 265, 199 P. 1012 (1921).27 New York: People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286 (1901).28 Tennessee:......
  • Culombe v. Connecticut
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 19 Junio 1961
    ...62; State v. Smith, 1960, 32 N.J. 501, 161 A.2d 520. New Mexico: State v. Lindemuth, 1952, 56 N.M. 257, 243 P.2d 325; State v. Griego, 1956, 61 N.M. 42, 294 P.2d 282; State v. Padilla, 1959, 66 N.M. 289, 347 P.2d 312. New York: People v. Perez, 1949, 300 N.Y. 208, 90 N.E.2d 40; People v. Sp......
  • State v. Cochran
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • 2 Diciembre 1968
    ...cannot complain that the evidence showed he was guilty of a higher degree of homicide than that of which he was convicted, State v. Griego, 61 N.M. 42, 294 P.2d 282, appellant argues that the statute does not apply in a situation where the defendant is charged only with voluntary manslaught......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT