State v. Jimenez
| Decision Date | 22 November 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 9469,9469 |
| Citation | 1972 NMSC 73,84 N.M. 335,503 P.2d 315 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Danny Joe JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Danny Joe Jimenez, a juvenile of the age of 17 years, was charged with murdering Myrtle Spence in Quay County and upon motion of the district attorney the court ordered that he be certified as an adult to the district court pursuant to Section 13--8--27, N.M.S.A., 1953. Following a trial before the court, a jury having been waived, he was found guilty of first degree murder. From judgment imposing sentence, he has appealed.
The appellant first contends that Section 13--8--27 supra, and the action taken thereunder by the district court is unconstitutional because (a) the provisions for certification of a juvenile to district court are so vague, indefinite, and lacking in any recognizable standard or criterion for a determination of certification as to deny him equal protection and due process afforded by the Constitution of the State of New Mexico, Article II, Section 18, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and (b) the provisions for certification of a child as an adult for criminal proceedings are not clearly expressed in the title of the act and thereby violates Article IV, Section 16 of the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. We find these contentions without merit.
It is the conclusion of this Court that the case of State v. Doyal,59 N.M. 454, 286 P.2d 306 is dispositive of appellant's contention that the statute violates Article II, Section 18 of our state constitution and the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. The language of Section 13--8--27, N.M.S.A., 1953, is now more precise in its method of certification of juveniles to be handled as adults than was the language of the Juvenile Delinquency Act approved in Doyal, supra.
Section 13--8--27 supra, appears as chapter 361, Laws of 1959, and the pertinent portions of the title reads:
'An Act Relating to Juveniles; * * * Redefining the Methods of Taking Custody, Holding, Commitment, and Parole of Juvenile Offenders; * * *.'
It is our conclusion that the Title of the Act gives adequate notice that provisions for certification of a juvenile to the district court could reasonably be found within the Act. Silver City Consolidated School District No. 1 v. Board of Regents of New Mexico Western College, 75 N.M. 106, 401 P.2d 95; and Stave v. Aragon, 55 N.M. 423, 234 P.2d 112.
The appellant moved for a change of venue to a county outside the Tenth Judicial District claiming he could not receive a fair trial therein due to local prejudice caused by the news media and the fact that he was of Spanish ancestry. His motion was based upon the affidavit of his counsel and various newspaper clippings incorporated therein. The denial of his motion is asserted as prejudicial error. We do not agree. The trial court conducted a hearing upon the motion and made findings that the residents of Quay County were not prejudiced against him, and that the appellant could receive a fair trial before an impartial jury in Quay County. These findings have substantial support in the evidence. Whether a change of venue should be granted is a question addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the ruling of the court will not be disturbed absent a showing of abuse of discretion. We have carefully reviewed the record and fail to find any abuse of discretion. The burden of showing an abuse of discretion was on the accused and he failed to sustain that burden. Deats v. State, 80 N.M. 77, 451 P.2d 981; State v. Montoya, 80 N.M. 64, 451 P.2d 557; State v. Fernandez, 56 N.M. 689, 248 P.2d 679; State v. Atwood, 83 N.M. 416, 492 P.2d 1279; and State v. Vaughn, 82 N.M. 310, 481 P.2d 98.
The appellant complains that the court committed reversible error in admitting into evidence a partial print of the palm of a hand taken from a small board found in the victim's apartment on the night of July 11, 1971, the day she was assaulted. He argues first, that the palm print was taken under such circumstances as to raise a question as to the validity of the print, and second, that there was not sufficient foundation to show a probative value of a partial palm print as to indicate the presence of the accused at the scene of the crime. This claim of error must be rejected. The partial palm print taken from the board and appellant's palm print taken while in custody were identical. Further, the witness Moncus testified that he had been in the victim's apartment on July 11 o...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Chamberlain
...v. Martin, 101 N.M. 595, 686 P.2d 937 (1984). The burden to show an abuse of discretion lies with the movant. State v. Jimenez, 84 N.M. 335, 337, 503 P.2d 315, 317 (1972). Exposure of venire members to publicity about a case by itself does not establish prejudice or create a presumption of ......
-
Clemons v. State, 3--673A72
...v. State (1970), 86 Nev. 889, 478 P.2d 168; 1 State v. Doyal (1955), 59 N.M. 454, 286 P.2d 306 (recently reaffirmed in State v. Jimenez (1972), 84 N.M. 335, 503 P.2d 315). 2 Only People v. Fields, supra, has held the Michigan waiver statute to be an unconstitutional delegation. In In re Juv......
-
People in Interest of L. V. A.
...287, 505 P.2d 896; Sherfield v. State, Okl.Cr.1973, 511 P.2d 598; State v. Scoville, 1973, 113 N.H. 161, 304 A.2d 366; State v. Jimenez, 1972, 84 N.M. 335, 503 P.2d 315; In re Weidner, 1971, 6 Or.App. 317, 487 P.2d 1385; State v. Williams, Mo.1971, 473 S.W.2d 382; Lewis v. State, 1970, 86 N......
-
State v. Gonzales, 20,998.
...306, 311-12 (1955) (upholding law allowing any child charged with a felony to be prosecuted in district court); State v. Jimenez, 84 N.M. 335, 336, 503 P.2d 315, 316 (1972) (holding transfer statute constitutional and noting that revised statute gave greater guidance to trial courts in dete......