Territory v. Armijo.
Decision Date | 04 September 1894 |
Citation | 37 P. 1117,7 N.M. 571 |
Parties | TERRITORYv.ARMIJO. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Bernalillo county; before Justice Collier.
Vicente Armijo was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, and appeals. Reversed.
The disqualifications of petit jurors cannot be raised for the first time on motion for a new trial, unless such disqualifications were prejudicial to defendant.
H. B. Fergusson, for appellant, E. L.
Bartlett, Sol. Gen., for the Territory.
The defendant, Vicente Armijo, was indicted by the grand jury at the October, 1893, term of the district court of the second judicial district for Bernalillo county, charged with assault with a deadly weapon upon one Jose H. Gurule, which indictment is in words and figures, viz.: At the March term, A. D. 1894, of the said district court, the defendant was arraigned, and entered his plea of not guilty as charged. A trial in due form was had, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty, as charged in the indictment. On the incoming of the verdict, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, which was by the court denied. The defendant then filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which is in words and figures to wit: -which motion by the court was overruled and denied; and the court pronounced judgment on the defendant, and fixed his punishment at two years' confinement in the New Mexico penitentiary, from all of which rulings and judgment of the court the defendant appealed to this court, and assigned error as follows, to wit:
It is not necessary to the disposition of this case to consider anything but the errors assigned in the motion in arrest of judgment. The first and second grounds set out in the motion refer to the qualifications of members of the grand jury who found and returned the indictment; and these objections come too late. If any objections to the legal qualifications of members of the grand jury existed, such objections should have been raised and presented in proper form to the court before the defendant entered his plea of not guilty to the merits. This proposition has been so often decided by this court that it is unnecessary here to refer to authorities on the subject. The fourth ground in the motion refers to some disqualification of members of the petit jury who found and returned the verdict of guilty. The disqualifications of petit jurors must be taken advantage of before the incoming of the verdict by challenge, and cannot be raised for the first time on a motion for a new trial or in arrest of judgment, as any disqualification of petit jurors is cured by verdict, unless it shall be made to appear affirmatively that any such disqualifications resulted to the prejudice of the defendant; and there is nothing in the record disclosing such a state of facts. The fifth ground in the motion is in terms general, and does not point out any specific or sufficient cause for review. This leaves for consideration only the third ground, and this goes to the sufficiency of the allegations as charged in the indictment, and it will be considered as it appears in the record.
1. The pleader evidently attempted to frame this indictmen t under Laws 1887, p. 55, c. 30, known as the “Deadly Weapon Act;” and it is insufficient and defective, because the offense charged does not come within the scope of any section...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Padilla, 16430
...(holding that even small knife with two-inch blade could be considered deadly weapon depending on actual use); Territory v. Armijo, 7 N.M. 571, 577-78, 37 P. 1117, 1118 (1894) ("Any knife may be so used as to become a deadly weapon, but all knives are not in law 'deadly weapons[,]' " depend......
-
State v. Nick R.
...statutory definition of "deadly weapon," interestingly in the context of its application to a pocketknife, was Territory v. Armijo, 7 N.M. 571, 577-78, 37 P. 1117, 1118 (1894). By that time, the definition had been slightly amended by the Deadly Weapon of 1887 to resemble even more closely ......
-
State v. Deats
...injury.' State v. Ortega, 77 N.M. 312, 422 P.2d 353 (1966); see State v. Eskildson, 36 N.M. 238, 13 P.2d 417 (1932), Territory v. Armijo, 7 N.M. 571, 37 P. 1117 (1894); United States v. Gomez, 7 N.M. 554, 37 P. 1101 (1894); United States v. Folsom, 7 N.M. 532, 38 P. 70 Defendant's motion ma......
-
State v. Criss
... ... page 737, No. 16,742; Morgan v ... State of Florida, 51 Fla. 76, 40 So. 828, 7 Ann.Cas ... 773; State v. Baker, 34 Me. 52; Territory v ... Armijo, 7 N.M. 571, 37 P. 1117; State v ... Thompson, 10 Mont. 549, 27 P. 349. The opposite ... conclusion is reached where the exact date ... ...