State v. Schrader
| Citation | 324 P.2d 1025,64 N.M. 100,1958 NMSC 56 |
| Decision Date | 30 April 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 6354,6354 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Glenn D. SCHRADER, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Neal & Neal, Hobbs, for appellant.
Fred M. Standley, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Pyatt, Alfred P. Whittaker, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from the district court of Lea County, New Mexico. Appellant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement and from the verdict and judgment entered thereon he appeals.
An information was filed against the appellant in four counts. The first three counts charged him with the crime of embezzlement and the fourth count with the crime of obtaining property with intent to cheat and defraud by false or fraudulent representations. The trial resulted in conviction on count No. 1, and acquittal on count No. 2. The district attorney, prior to trial, dismissed count No. 3. and the court below sustained a motion made by the district attorney to dismiss count No. 4. This appeal concerns itself only with count No. 1, which, stated briefly, charged that appellant, while city clerk in and for the city of Eunice, New Mexico, embezzled monies belonging to the said city.
This is a statutory crime under Sec. 40-45-22 of the New Mexico Statutes Annotated, 1953, which reads as follows:
'Any public official or other person holding an office under any of the laws of this state, to whom is entrusted, by virtue of his office or position, or shall hereafter be entrusted, the collection, safekeeping receipt, disbursement, transfer or handling in any manner whatever of any tax, revenue, fine or other moneys or property, or any person having in his possession any money or other property belonging to this state, or to any county, precinct, school district, city, town or village of this state, who shall convert to his own use in any way or manner whatever, any part of said moneys or properties, or who shall loan, with or without interest, except as provided by law, any money entrusted to his care as aforesaid, shall be guilty of embezzlement Provided, that if at any time there is a shortage in the money or property for which any of the foregoing officers or persons are accountable, the existence of such shortage shall be prima facie evidence that such officer or person has converted to his own use and embezzled such money or property to the extent of such shortage, and upon conviction he shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a period of not less than one (1) year or more than fifteen (15) years or by a fine of not less than five hundred ($500.00) dollars or more than five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars, or both such fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.'
The problem presented by this appeal deals with the manner in which the shortages of money, necessary to show a crime under the statute, may be proved at the trial.
Over objection of defense counsel, the court admitted testimony of an accountant relating to shortages in the accounts of the city of Eunice. The books and records were not produced at the trial, but photostatic copies of parts of these records were admitted into evidence as exhibits.
In an embezzlement prosecution may a certified public accountant testify as to his findings from an examination of books and records not in evidence and not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Brookfield v. Candlewood Shores Estates, Inc., 12702
...in their entirety. McCormick, supra, § 233; see, e.g., Elmira Roofing Co. v. Gould, 71 Conn. 629, 42 A. 1002 (1899); State v. Schrader, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (1958); Keen v. O'Rourke, 48 Wash.2d 1, 5, 290 P.2d 976 (1955); 66 A.L.R. 1206 (right of witness to give summary based on inspec......
-
Archuleta v. Goldman
...to plaintiff's request for discovery. See R & R Assoc., Inc. v. Visual Scene, Inc., 726 F.2d 36 (1st Cir.1984); State v. Schrader, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (1958). Moreover, plaintiff does not dispute the accuracy of either the records or the summary. Instead, on appeal, plaintiff challen......
-
State v. Peke
...that he was actually prejudiced in any sense because the records were not actually introduced into evidence. See, State v. Schrader, 1958, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025. For clarity, it should be noted that a large part of the funds claimed to be embezzled came initially from the trust fund. H......
-
Williams v. City of Gallup
...tender in favor of exclusion of evidence. Modern authority favors the reception of evidence rather than its exclusion. State v. Schrader, 64 N.M. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 I dissent from the views which affirm the exclusion of the doctor's NOBLE, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part)......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...expert of records available for inspection was held proper under the original documents rule. See also State v. Schrader , 64 N.W. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (1958). But see Bolling Co. v. Barrington Co. , 398 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). Sum maries are inadmissible where records were not produce......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...expert of records available for inspection was held proper under the original documents rule. See also State v. Schrader , 64 N.W. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (1958). But see Bolling Co. v. Barrington Co. , 398 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). Summaries 8-17 OTHER EVIDENCE RULES §810 are inadmissible ......
-
Other Evidence Rules
...expert of records available for inspection was held proper under the original documents rule. See also State v. Schrader , 64 N.W. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (1958). But see Bolling Co. v. Barrington Co. , 398 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). Summaries are inadmissible where records were not produced......
-
Other evidence rules
...expert of records available for inspection was held proper under the original documents rule. See also State v. Schrader , 64 N.W. 100, 324 P.2d 1025 (1958). But see Bolling Co. v. Barrington Co. , 398 S.W.2d 28 (Mo. Ct. App. 1965). Sum maries are inadmissible where records were not produce......