State v. Pate
Decision Date | 12 March 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 4657.,4657. |
Citation | 47 N.M. 182,138 P.2d 1006 |
Parties | STATEv.PATE. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Third District Court, Dona Ana County; Frenger, Judge.
George H. Pate was convicted by a justice of the peace of violation of statute requiring nonresident owner of a foreign motor vehicle, who accepts gainful employment within the state, to secure a license for the vehicle, and he appealed to the district court. On trial de novo the district court dismissed the complaint, and the State appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Supreme Court could judicially notice the fact that nonresident automobile owners who remain in the state three months, and who are not gainfully employed, is made up largely of tourists.
Martin A. Threet, Dist. Atty., of Las Cruces, Edward P. Chase, Atty. Gen., and Howard F. Houk, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
Whatley & Garland, of Las Cruces, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the state from the judgment of the district court of Dona Ana County, dismissing a criminal complaint against defendant, entered upon the latter's motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence in the trial de novo of an appeal by defendant from a conviction before the Justice of the Peace of Precinct No. 6 in Dona Ana County, of a violation of L.1941, c. 165, § 1(a).
The portion of the act which the defendant was charged with violating, L.1941, c. 165, § 1(a), reads as follows:
The language of the proviso, which is in italics, was added by amendment in 1941. Prior thereto no distinction was made in the application of this subsection of the act to a nonresident, whether gainfully employed or not. The amendment became effective on April 13, 1941. The evidence disclosed defendant's nonresidence. He arrived in Dona Ana County from Texas on July 4, 1941, driving a four-door Ford sedan of which he was the owner, duly registered and licensed in the state of Texas for the years 1941 and 1942. The defendant was a skilled fruit and canteloupe packer at which occupation he accepted gainful employment in Dona Ana County on July 16, 1941. Having failed and refused thereafter to obtain a New Mexico license for said automobile, as requested by an officer of the State Police, the defendant's arrest, trial before the justice of the peace and conviction followed as aforesaid. He appealed to the district court from the conviction and the ten-dollar fine imposed by the justice of the peace. In the district court when the evidence adduced by both sides was all in, the defendant interposed the following motion, to-wit:
“Mr. Garland: Comes now the defendant and moves the Court to dismiss the case against him on the following grounds, to-wit:
Treating the motion as an interlocutory one to quash a complaint charging facts as disclosed by the evidence, the court sustained the same and entered judgment dismissing the complaint. The state appeals under the authority of 1929 Comp., § 105-2527. The main question presented is whether the act as amended violates the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution and Article 2, § 18 of the State Constitution as denying to the defendant the equal protection of the laws.
[1][2] The State as appellant places chief reliance on the decisions of this court in the cases of Davy v. McNeill, 31 N.M. 7, 240 P. 482, and Hutcheson v. Atherton, 44 N.M. 144, 99 P.2d 462, 465. We think those cases are not decisive. In them we recognized the general rule that in classifying for purposes of legislation the lawmakers are accorded a wide field of choice and that their groupings will not be disturbed merely because the basis adopted therefor may appear to us unreasonable and unjust, if it plausibly could have seemed reasonable to them. The question regarding classification is always, as said in Hutcheson v. Atherton, supra:
[3][4][5][6] We recognized, however, that legislative action in this behalf is necessarily subject to judicial review. The cases already cited, as well as the earlier ones of State v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 N.M. 562, 151 P. 305, and McKinley Board of Education v. Tax Commission, 28 N.M. 221, 210 P. 565, 566, so affirm. As said in McKinley Board of Education v. Tax Commission: ’
[7][8] The test of reasonableness is applied alike whether the legislature be exercising the state's police power or its taxing power. Asher v. Ingels, D.C., 13 F.Supp. 654, and Gaines & Co. v. Holmes, 154 Ga. 344, 144 S.E. 327, 27 A.L.R. 98. Likewise, the distinction imposed should find some reasonable support in or relationship to the purpose of the law.
“Legislative classification to be constitutional must be based upon some substantial foundation, it may not be arbitrary, it must be germane to the purpose of the law.” H. P. Welch Co. v. State, 89 N.H. 428, 199 A. 886, 889, 120 A.L.R. 282. See, also, Commonwealth v. Alden Coal Co., 251 Pa. 134, 96 A. 246, L.R.A. 1916F, 154, and Morf v. Ingels, D.C., 14 F.Supp. 922.
Bearing these considerations in mind, it becomes pertinent to inquire what there is in gainful employment which creates that substantial distinction between the two classes or groups of nonresidents necessary to justify the imposition of the license fee as to the one and its exemption as to the other? We are unable to find a satisfactory answer to the inquiry nor can we see wherein the legislature plausibly could have done so.
As will be seen from the language of this section of the act the unemployed nonresident owning an automobile duly registered for the current year in another state enjoys immunity for three months from registering the same in New Mexico Whereas, another member of the same general group automatically becomes subject to the requirement of registration upon accepting gainful employment. Conceivably and under the strict letter of the act this could be true of employment for so short a period as a week, or even a single day, occurring at the beginning of a nonresident's three months' sojourn in the state.
The appellee cites instances of the operation of the act on nonresidents of his class to illustrate the hardship, injustice and inequality of the law. They follow from his brief:
“If a doctor or lawyer from another state has but one patient or client in New Mexico, comes into the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cartwright v. Public Service Co. of N.M., 6172
...cases of State v. Armstrong 31 N.M. 220, 243 P. 333; Odell v. Colmor Irrigation & Land Co., 34 N.M. 277, 280 P. 398, and State v. Pate, 47 N.M. 182, 138 P.2d 1006, in each of which a judge or judges participated on rehearing as successor to some judge no longer on the court who had particip......
-
State Et Rel. State Game Comm'n v. Red River Valley Co.
...cases of State v. Armstrong, 31 N.M. 220, 243 P. 333; Odell v. Colmor Irrigation & Land Co., 34 N.M. 277, 280 P. 398 and State v. Pate, 47 N.M. 182, 138 P.2d 1006, in each of which a judge or judges participated on rehearing as successor to some judge no longer on the court who had particip......
-
State ex rel. Hughes v. Cleveland
...for purposes of legislation. Davy v. McNeill, 31 N.M. 7, 240 P. 482; Hutcheson v. Atherton, 44 N.M. 144, 99 P.2d 462; State v. Pate, 47 N.M. 182, 138 P.2d 1006. We see no good purpose in holding it to a stricter rule in deciding what is reasonable provision for the public health than in det......
-
Marec v. United States Steel Corporation
...v. Ratterman, 44 Ohio St. 661, 11 N.E. 321; Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U.S. 239, 70 S.Ct. 577, 94 L.Ed. 795; State v. Pate, 47 N.M. 182, 138 P. 2d 1006; State Board of Assessors v. New Jersey Cent. R. Co., 48 N.J.L. 146, 4 A. 578; Attorney General v. Winnebago Lake & Fox River ......