State v. Webb
| Decision Date | 31 August 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 6644,6644 |
| Citation | 67 N.M. 293,354 P.2d 1112,1960 NMSC 89 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Gene WEBB, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Henry J. Hughes, Sante Fe, for appellant.
Hilton A. Dickson, Jr., Atty. Gen., Philip R. Ashby and B. J. Baggett, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of intentionally and unlawfully taking a motor vehicle without the consent of the owner.
The facts are uncontradicted, inasmuch as the defendant neither took the stand nor called any witnesses in his defense.
The state's testimony was to effect that the defendant took a car from a used-car dealer's lot, drove the same in the city of Hobbs, New Mexico, and upon being arrested, was identified by one of the salesmen as the person he had seen driving the car away from the lot without permission.
The only question relied upon for reversal is the contention that the defendant was denied due process of law, in that he was an indigent and that the trial court failed to provide a psychiatric examination as to his sanity.
Prior to the commencement of the trial, a conference was held in chambers between, the court, the district attorney and the court-appointed counsel for the defendant. The defendant's attorney at that time made an oral motion, which was actually in five parts. The first four portions of the motion were an attack upon the preliminary proceedings, the prior arraignment in the district court, and a question with respect to the original arrest of the defendant. The fifth ground and the subsequent proceedings with reference to the entire motion appears in the transcript, as follows:
'The Court: He has refused to enter a plea of guilty even though a local doctor has found him sane?
'Mr. Walton: As I say, though, it was not expressly stated but inferred.
'Mr. Walton: To which the defendant excepts.'
Thereafter, the trial of the case commenced with the announcement in open court by the defendant's attorney that the defendant desired to plead not guilty by reason of insanity. During the process of the trial, there was not one word of pool or tendered proof as to any issue of insanity, nor was there any further request on the part of defendant's counsel to alert the court or seek its aid with respect to the defense of insanity. Neither did counsel at any time during the trial seek to clear up the quite obvious misunderstanding on the part of the trial court that previously the defendant had been examined by a local doctor at county expense. As a matter of fact, the only other mention of this defense appears in the court's instructions, wherein the court advised the jury that such defense had been made and that the law presumes every person to be sane unless the contrary appears from the testimony or from the behavior or demeanor of the defendant. The court further stated that no testimony had been offered, but that the jury might consider the defendant's behavior as touching upon this subject.
The attorney general contends with great vigor that the appellant failed to properly preserve the claimed error, and that, therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to hear the case. However, the attack is on the judgment as being inherently and fatally defective for lack of due process, certainly a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Muse v. Muse
...issue on appeal for the first time because he was denied a fundamental right. Husband relies on language found in State v. Webb, 67 N.M. 293, 296, 354 P.2d 1112, 1113 (1960), stating that the defendant's attack on a judgment as being inherently and fatally defective for lack of due process ......
-
Schmidt v. State
...a defense, * * * ' * * * coupled with the right to compulsory process for the attendance of necessary witnesses.' State v. Webb, 67 N.M. 293, 297, 354 P.2d 1112, 1114 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 804, 81 S.Ct. 470, 5 L.Ed.2d 461 (1961). To deny those rights is more than an abuse of the tr......
-
March v. State
...at public expense, coupled with the right to compulsory process for the attendance of necessary witnesses." State v. Webb, 67 N.M. 293, 297, 354 P.2d 1112, 1114 (1960), cert. denied, 365 U.S. 804, 81 S.Ct. 470, 5 L.Ed.2d 461 (1961). To deny those rights is more than an abuse of the trial co......
-
State v. Gomez
...review, defendant argues that the introduction of the evidence resulted in a deprivation of due process. He relies upon State v. Webb, 67 N.M. 293, 354 P.2d 1112 (1960). The only question presented in Webb for reversal was the contention that defendant was denied due process of law in that ......