State v. Wright
| Decision Date | 02 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 854,854 |
| Citation | 84 N.M. 3,498 P.2d 695,1972 NMCA 73 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Wright was convicted and sentenced for armed robbery. Section 40A--16--2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 6). He appeals.
We affirm.
Wright claims, (1) the trial court erred in failing to grant a new trial in which to present the defense of entrapment; (2) the trial court erred in allowing the introduction of certain evidence.
Wright claims that a police informer gave false testimony at trial which prejudiced him, and the informant excluded certain testimony of an exculpatory nature which would have allowed Wright to better urge the defense of entrapment. Therefore, Wright says he was entitled to a new trial.
A motion for a new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Milton, 80 N.M. 727, 460 P.2d 257 (Ct.App.1969).
The trial court carefully considered the testimony given at the hearing on the motion for a new trial. It decided that the issues of false testimony and entrapment should have been tested on cross-examination during trial.
A review of the record fails to disclose an abuse of discretion by the trial court. A party cannot sit by, having knowledge of his acts and complain only when the verdict is against him. Compare State v. Milton, supra. This was most aptly stated by the trial court when after hearing all the testimony on the motion for the new trial stated, 'Well, you just don't get two bites at the apple, that's all there is to it.'
A review of the record reveals Wright relied upon an alibi de- fense . The jury resolved the issue against him. Additionally, when the defense of alibi was offered during trial, the defense of entrapment is not available to a defendant who denies committing the offense, because to invoke entrapment necessarily assumes the commission of at least some of the elements of the offense. State v. Garcia, 79 N.M. 367, 443 P.2d 860 (1968).
Wright now contends that trial counsel did not measure up to the standards set forth in State v. Hines, 78 N.M. 471, 432 P.2d 827 (1967), and other cases, which relate to inadequacy of counsel. He now asserts 'Either trial counsel had no theory of the defense and was groping for any peg of evidence upon which to frame a defense, or he was attempting to fly in the face of State v. Garcia, supra, by raising inconsistent defenses and the canons of ethics by using perjured testimony.' As we have previously stated, the record reveals evidence and a theory of the defense of alibi. There is no showing that counsel used perjured testimony. These contentions pertain to trial tactics and strategy over which the attorney has control. They do not necessarily amount to inadequacy of counsel. State v. Hines, supra. Before defendant can be heard to complain of inadequacy of counsel he must show that the proceedings leading to his conviction amount to a sham, a farce, or a mockery. State v. Wilson, 82 N.M. 142, 477 P.2d 318 (Ct.App.1970). No such showing is presented here.
Over Wright's objection, the state introduced in evidence a pair of black moccasins taken from Wright at the time of the arrest. Wright claims the moccasins were improperly seized and were not tied to the armed robbery. The moccasins were seized at the time of a lawful arrest and were admissible in evidence. State v. Ramirez, 79 N.M. 475, 444 P.2d 986 (1968). Wright contends the moccasins had no...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1998 -NMCA- 18, State v. House
...after the accident, Defendant was not prejudiced by admission of the subsequent blood-alcohol test results. State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5, 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972) (for error to be reversible it must be C. Enhancement of Defendant's Sentence Based on a Prior DWI conviction ¶65 Defend......
-
State v. Williams
... ... However, although we hold that the evidence was inadmissible under Rule 404(B), we hold that the error was harmless and reversal is not required. See State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5, 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972). For error to be considered harmless, there must be: ... (1) substantial evidence to support the conviction without reference to the improperly admitted evidence, (2) such a disproportionate volume of permissible evidence that, in comparison, the ... ...
-
State v. Padilla
... ... In addition, the State points out that Padilla also testified she was using methadone on the day of the armed robbery. Thus, there was no prejudice from the challenged testimony because the jury was informed by Padilla's own testimony that she had been and was a drug user. See State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5, 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972) (in order for error to be reversible, it must be prejudicial) ... Page 1214 ... [118 N.M. 195] Padilla argues that she may not have chosen to testify on her own behalf if the State had not been successful in having the syringe ... ...
-
State v. Lunn, 1511
... ... Officer Montoya's testimony was relevant in that it tended to corroborate testimony of the victim's widow regarding the presence of the defendant at the Candelaria house on the night in question. State v. Thurman, supra; State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 498 P.2d 695 (Ct.App.1972) ... The two sons of the deceased were 7 and 11 years of age, respectively, at the time of the shooting. Neither of them had testified at any of the three prior trials ... In his brief-in-chief, defendant states that he: ... ...