State v. Lucero
Decision Date | 12 March 1918 |
Docket Number | No. 2095.,2095. |
Citation | 171 P. 785,24 N.M. 343 |
Parties | STATEv.LUCERO. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Syllabus by the Court.
Errors in instructions must be called to the attention of the trial court by proper objections or exceptions before the instructions are given to the jury.
Evidence held to sustain verdict.
Additional Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Where the motion for a new trial did not call the trial court's attention to the alleged insufficiency of the evidence as to venue to sustain a conviction, the question was not reviewable on appeal.
Appeal from District Court, San Miguel County; Leahy, Judge.
Juan V. Lucero was convicted of the larceny of one head of neat cattle, and he appeals.Affirmed.
Evidence held to sustain verdict.
O. A. Larrazolo, of Las Vegas, for appellant.
George C. Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted in the district court of San Miguel county under an indictment charging him with the larceny of one head of neat cattle, the property of Florencio Garcia.The venue was laid in the county of San Miguel.
[1] Two points are relied upon here for reversal: First, that the trial court erred in giving instruction No. 10 relative to where the trial of an offense may be had, where it is committed within 500 yards of a boundary line between two counties.This instruction, however, is not subject to review here because the alleged vice in it was not called to the attention of the trial court by objection or exception prior to the giving of the instruction.Errors in instructions must be called to the attention of the trial court by proper objections or exceptions before the instructions are given to the jury.Territory v. Pettine, 16 N. M. 40, 113 Pac. 843;State v. Eaker, 17 N. M. 479, 131 Pac. 489;State v. Alva, 18 N. M. 143, 134 Pac. 209, 211;State v. Padilla, 18 N. M. 573, 139 Pac. 143;U. S. v. Cook, 15 N. M. 124, 103 Pac. 305;State v. Graves, 21 N. M. 556, 157 Pac. 160;State v. Johnson, 21 N. M. 432, 155 Pac. 721.
[2][3] The second point urged is that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence, in that there was no evidence to show commission of the crime in San Miguel county.An examination of the transcript, however, does not sustain appellant's contention.There was evidence from which the jury might reasonably conclude that the animal was stolen within San Miguel county; nor is this question here for review, because not properly called to the...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Martinez.
...to cover the issues involved. State v. Padilla, 18 N. M. 573, 139 P. 143; State v. Johnson, 21 N. M. 432, 434, 155 P. 721; State v. Lucero, 24 N. M. 343, 171 P. 785. Upon proper request, the defendant in a criminal case is entitled to have instructions given upon every material issue raised......
-
State v. Martinez
... ... give such instructions as he thinks should be given or to ... except to the instructions as given, because of their failure ... to cover the issues involved. State v. Padilla, 18 ... N.M. 573, 139 P. 143; State v. Johnson, 21 N.M. 432, ... 434, 155 P. 721; State v. Lucero, 24 N.M. 343, 171 ... P. 785. Upon proper request, the defendant in a criminal case ... is entitled to have instructions given upon every material ... issue raised by the evidence presented. As was said in ... Reed v. State, 3 Okl. Cr. 16, 103 P. 1070, 24 L. R ... A. (N. S.) 268: ... "The ... ...
-
Laws v. Pyeatt
...jurisdictions objections to the charge, not made prior to the reading of it to the jury, cannot be considered.” He cites State v. Lucero, 24 N.M. 343, 171 P. 785, in support of this statement. Immediately following such statement, Mr. Randall says: “Under this rule exceptions taken after th......