State v. Harris.
| Decision Date | 29 July 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 4286.,4286. |
| Parties | STATEv.HARRIS. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Lea County; James B. McGhee, Judge.
Goble Harris was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Trial errors generally will not be reviewed unless trial court's attention was called thereto.
Hervey, Dow, Hill & Hinkle, of Roswell, for appellant.
Frank H. Patton, Atty. Gen., and Richard E. Manson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to serve a term in the penitentiary of not less than two nor more than three years. From this judgment and sentence this appeal is prosecuted.
There were no objections taken at the trial to any of the testimony adduced by the prosecution, and no objections were made to any of the instructions given by the trial court, and no instructions were requested by the appellant either contrary to or differing from those instructions given to the jury by the trial court.
Counsel for appellant now ask this court to review the entire record to ascertain whether or not the trial court erred in giving instructions to the jury defining the crime of manslaughter as applied to the facts in this case. The appellant claims the court committed fundamental error in that the court's instructions were not in accord with the appellant's conception of the degree of negligence necessary to constitute the basis of the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
[1] It was the duty of the appellant to point out to the trial court any claimed errors in the administration of justice as they occurred. This would have enabled the judge of the district court to avoid such errors. The failure of the appellant to point out the errors which he now claims were committed by the trial court, and his failure to invoke a ruling by the trial court at the time, is fatal. The purpose of the law is to give an accused a fair trial, not repeated chances for an acquittal. Errors, if any, not in some manner brought to the attention of the trial court, may not be relied on here for reversal. State v. Diaz, 36 N. M. 284, 13 P.(2d) 883, and cases therein cited.
[2] Appellant contends that the trial court committed fundamental error. This contention is based on the claim that the court did not properly instruct the jury on the law of the case, and that the evidence does not show that the appellant was driving his truck in a reckless, wanton manner in utter disregard for the safety of others. If the record showed that the killing had been caused by mere negligence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1996 -NMSC- 68, State v. Yarborough
...of Appeals set forth, Yarborough, 120 N.M. at 672, 905 P.2d at 212, this Court was first presented with this question in State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 70 P.2d 757 (1937). The defendant inHarris was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, and argued that his conviction was proper only if he h......
-
United States v. Jones
...230, 4 P.3d 1221, 1224 (quoting State v. Arias, 1993-NMCA-007, ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 93, 847 P.2d 327, 330, and citing State v. Harris, 1937-NMSC-046, 41 N.M. 426, 70 P.2d 757, 757 ). See State v. Sisneros, 1938-NMSC-049, ¶ 30, 42 N.M. 500, 82 P.2d 274, 280 (concluding that the statutory phrase "wi......
-
State v. Myers
...speed for the area; nor was the defendant's vehicle shown to be operating oddly. We do not depart from reasoning in State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 70 P.2d 757 (1937), to the effect that a death caused by mere negligence, not amounting to a reckless, willful and wanton disregard of consequenc......
-
State v. Richerson
...166 (1959); State v. Romero, 69 N.M. 187, 365 P.2d 58 (1961); Amaro v. Moss, 65 N.M. 373, 337 P.2d 948 (1959). Compare, State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 70 P.2d 757 (1937). We have reviewed the cases cited by defendant. None of them involve facts of defendant driving on the wrong side of the h......