State v. Kidd.
| Decision Date | 08 March 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 3243.,3243. |
| Citation | 278 P. 214,34 N.M. 84 |
| Parties | STATEv.KIDD. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
The testimony of an accomplice, discredited by a criminal record, will sustain a conviction.
Evidence examined, and held sufficient to show constructive presence at burglary.
In the absence of fraud, the drawing of grand jury will not be held invalid because the clerk's certificate to list of male voters was displaced in binding.
Appeal from District Court, Harding County; Kiker, Judge.
Webb Kidd was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Affirmed.
In the absence of fraud, the drawing of grand jury will not be held invalid because the clerk's certificate to list of male voters was displaced in binding.
Thomas V. Truder, of East Las Vegas, and H. E. Blattman, of Las Vegas, for appellant.
Robert C. Dow, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was convicted upon an indictment charging him and others with the crime of burglary.
The victim of this crime was returning with his son from town in the evening. The two were overpowered and bound. Thereupon the burglars entered his home, near by, bound the occupants, and removed a considerable amount of intoxicating liquor.
[1] Appellant's first contention is that the verdict is contrary to the law and the evidence. This is based upon the claim that the only evidence connecting appellant with the crime was furnished by an accomplice, and that this witness had a criminal record independent of his connection with the present transaction. Of course, these facts cast discredit upon the witness, and the jury, had it seen fit, might have disregarded his testimony. The verdict compels the assumption that it was believed. The uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice is sufficient in law to support a verdict. Territory v. Kinney, 3 N. M. 143, 2 P. 357. It is not within our province to disturb the verdict on this ground.
[2] It is also contended that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a directed verdict. Appellant was indicted as a principal. He did not actually participate in the breaking and entering, or in removing the booty. It is contended that the proof is insufficient to show that he was constructively present, aiding and abetting. According to the evidence, he aided in the conspiracy with advice and suggestion, appeared near the scene of the burglary to advise his confederates that the victim and his son were in town, was within a few hundred yards of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Turnbow
...weight to be given the testimony is to be determined by the jury. Territory v. Kinney, 1884, 3 N.M., Gild., 143, 2 P. 357; State v. Kidd, 1929, 34 N.M. 84, 278 P. 214; State v. Chitwood, 1930, 34 N.W. 505, 285 P. 499; and State v. Armijo, 1931, 35 N.M. 533, 2 P.2d Turnbow was allowed the fu......
-
State v. Montoya
... ... State v. Kidd , 1929NMSC025, 3, 34 N.M. 84, 278 P. 214 ; see State v. Gutierrez , 1965NMSC143, 4, 75 N.M. 580, 408 P.2d 503 ([T]he rule in this jurisdiction is that a defendant may be convicted on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.); State v. Armijo , 1931NMSC008, 30, 35 N.M. 533, 2 P.2d 1075 ... ...
-
State v. GRUBAUGH, 5272
...the verdict returned by the jury. If either defendant made an entry with any part of his body, both are equally guilty.State v. Kidd, 34 N.M. 84, 278 P. 214; State v. Mersfelder, 34 N.M. 465, 284 P. 113. Cf. Territory v. Gallegos, 17 N.M. 409, 130 P. 245. And it is not essential in a prosec......
-
State v. Armijo
...testimony of an accomplice will sustain a conviction though the witness was discredited by having a criminal record. State v. Kidd, 34 N. M. 84, 278 P. 214. Whether a witness has been so impeached as to render his testimony unworthy of belief is a question for the jury. Las Cruces Motor Co.......