State v. Losolla
| Citation | 84 N.M. 151,1972 NMCA 85,500 P.2d 436 |
| Decision Date | 23 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 836,836 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Orlando LOSOLLA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendant, Orlando Losolla, was tried and convicted of violating § 54--7--51, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2) unlawful use of a narcotic drug. He appeals. The issues: (1) lack of advice of rights; and (2) sufficiency of the evidence.
The second issued being dispositive of the appeal, we need not consider the first.
The Information under which defendant was tried, charged 'That on or about February 22, 1971, in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, Orlando Losolla and Reymundo Losolla, unlawfully used a narcotic drug, to-wit: Heroin, in violation of Section 54--7--51, NMSA1953 Compilation.' Reymundo Losolla was tried separately. At the close of the State's case defendant made a * * *' The motion was denied. It was error to do so. Even though this matter was no brought up or argued on appeal, we will sua sponte raise it for consideration because it is jurisdictional. State v. Clemons, 83 N.M. 674, 496 P.2d 167 (Ct.App.1972); State v. McNeece, 82 N.M. 345, 481 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1971).
The record does not establish where the defendant used the narcotic drug. To justify a conviction the evidence must establish every essential element of the offense charged. State v. Taylor, 14 Utah 2d 107, 378 P.2d 352 (1963); and whatever is essential must affirmatively appear from the record. Guthrie v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 602, 186 S.E.2d 68 (1972). One of the essential elements incumbent upon the State was to establish where the offense occurred, because the law is that a crime must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed. State v. Faggard, 25 N.M. 76, 177 P. 748 (1918).
We reverse, and because it is for a failure of proof, rather than error in the trial proceedings, the cause is remanded with instruction to discharge the defendant. State v. Malouff, 81 N.M. 619, 471 P.2d 189 (Ct.App.1970).
It is so ordered.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ramirez
...where committed, one of the essential elements which the State must establish is the location of the crime. State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 500 P.2d 436 (Ct.App.1972). The defendant confessed to the murder of Hector Carabajal and Francisco Padilla in Padilla's car. After shooting both victim......
-
Paradis v. State
...State v. Chatmon, 671 P.2d 531, 538 (Kan.1983); Peoples v. State, 523 P.2d 1123, 1125 (Okla.Crim.App.1974); State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 500 P.2d 436, 437 (App.1972); Peterson v. Jacobson, 2 Ariz.App. 593, 411 P.2d 31, 33 (1966); State v. Clark, 392 P.2d 539, 580 (Wyo.1964) ("Jurisdiction......
-
State v. McCoy
...is insufficient to prove offense was committed in the state), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 54, 781 P.2d 782 (1989); State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 152, 500 P.2d 436, 437 (Ct.App.1972) (jurisdiction is an essential element of the offense charged). Defendants suggest that when people live so close ......
-
State v. Fierro
... ... Litteral, 1990–NMSC–059, ¶ 19, 110 N.M. 138, 793 P.2d 268. “One of the essential elements incumbent upon the [s]tate was to establish where the offense occurred, because the law is that a crime must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed.” State v. Losolla, 1972–NMCA–085, ¶ 4, 84 N.M. 151, 500 P.2d 436. Here, Victim testified that the CSP took place while she was living with Defendant at an address on 12th Street in Rio Rancho within Sandoval County. A detective from the Sandoval County Sheriff's Office also testified that Victim was living in ... ...