State v. Hatley
Decision Date | 08 July 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 6880,6880 |
Citation | 1963 NMSC 128,383 P.2d 247,72 N.M. 280 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Jimmy D. HATLEY, Appellant. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Earl E. Hartley, Atty. Gen., Boston E. Witt, Norman S. Thayer, Oliver E. Payne, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.
Robert Hoath Lafollette, Albuquerque, for appellant.
The appellant seeks a reversal of his conviction of the crime of armed robbery after a jury trial. He was charged with his codefendant, Owen L. Perry, of armed robbery. Before the time of appellant's trial, the codefendant, Perry, had plead guilty and been sentenced.
This opinion will consider first the second and third points raised on appeal. These, together, challenge the introduction into evidence, over objection, of written statements taken by police from codefendant. Owen Perry implicating appellant in the robbery. The statements were neither made in appellant's presence nor approved nor ratified by him. The rationale of the trial court's ruling is contained in its Instruction No. 12:
This court has considered and approved the admissibility of testimony as to the silence of a defendant as a fact from which guilt might be inferred by the jury. Territory v. Harrington, 17 N.M. 62, 121 P. 613. It is noteworthy that in this early case, the court said:
'* * * the rule of evidence which allows the silence of a person to be construed as an admission of the truth of matters stated in his presence is to be applied with caution, * * *.'
Similarly, see State v. Kidd, 24 N.M. 572, 175 P. 772; State v. Gilliam, 60 N.M. 129, 288 P.2d 675; City of Raton v. Cowan, 67 N.M. 463, 357 P.2d 52; Martinez v. United States, (10 CCA 1961), 295 F.2d 426.
Whether circumstances are such as to render the accused's failure to reply to a statement made in his presence an admission is, in the first instance, a question for the trial court.
In the present case, the testimony relating to defendant's conduct was as follows:
'* * * [Questions and answers followed relating to presence of Owen Perry.]
The trial court ruled that the statements were admissible. They were then read in full to the jury. The second of these statements named the defendant as an accomplice in the robbery.
There is no testimony in the record indicating that the defendant Hatley ratified the statements of Perry or tacitly acquiesced in their veracity. The only response made by him at any point to the accusation appears to have been that quoted, of declining to speak until he had consulted counsel.
Appellant challenges the propriety of the ruling of the court admitting the statements and in submitting the quoted Instruction No. 12, relative to the effect that jury could give to the appellant's failure to deny the implicating statements, when the appellant chose not to deny but to remain silent until he could consult counsel.
California has more cases involving the admissibility of hearsay accusations and the response of the accused by a failure to deny than any other state reported in West's General Digest Criminal Law k407, under which these cases are compiled.
In the case of People v. Spencer, 78 Cal.App.2d 652, 178 P.2d 520, the trial court was reversed for a failure to properly evaluate the circumstance under which the defendant failed to deny an accusatory statement. The facts in that case surrounding the incident of non-denial, were that the defendant was being questioned in the presence of codefendant by police. They all had been advised of their rights as to counsel and that anything they said could be used against them. After a codefendant had made orally in his presence a statement implicating the defendant, he refused comment. The trial court received the full statement of the codefendant in evidence and the testimony relative to the defendant's silence. Citing People v. Simmons, 28 Cal.2d 699, 712, 172 P.2d 18, an earlier California case. The court, in State v. Spencer, supra, stated:
* * *'
Quoting from the cited case, People v. Simmons, supra, the court stated: "No violation of the privilege against self-incrimination can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Archuleta
...court concerning charging in the alternative as to misappropriating or taking; therefore, it will not be considered. State v. Hatley, 72 N.M. 280, 383 P.2d 247 (1963). However, as to the propriety of the alternative instruction, see State v. Hollowell, 80 N.M. 756, 461 P.2d 238 (2) Instruct......
-
State v. Carlton
...by a prosecuting officer. Defendant cites Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966); and State v. Hatley, 72 N.M. 280, 383 P.2d 247 (1963). We agree that in the circumstances here the question was improper and the answer was erroneously admitted. The question wa......
-
State v. Fuentes, 1064
...to show prejudice amounting to fundamental error the issue decided in Gunzelman should not have been subject to review. State v. Hatley, 72 N.M. 280, 383 P.2d 247 (1963); State v. Herrera, 82 N.M. 432, 483 P.2d 313 (Ct.App.1971). Any alleged error was waived. State v. Lopez, 79 N.M. 282, 44......
-
State v. Deltenre
...to be determined by the trial court by way of voir dire examination. State v. Middleton, 26 N.M. 353, 192 P. 483. Compare State v. Hatley, 72 N.M. 280, 383 P.2d 247; and State v. Walker, 50 N.M. 132, 172 P.2d 588. To the extent Territory v. McGinnis, supra, is inconsistent with this holding......