{ "id": 1588542, "name": "In the Matter of the FORFEITURE OF 1982 FORD BRONCO, BROWN AND CREAM IN COLOR, LIC. GJ 3201, VIN: IFMEU15G4CLA67351. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Scott STEVENS, Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stevens", "decision_date": "1983-12-28", "docket_number": "No. 14910", "first_page": "577", "last_page": "579", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "100 N.M. 577" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "673 P.2d 1310" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "292 P. 52", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 Okl. 124", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Okla.", "case_ids": [ 8885565 ], "year": 1930, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/okla/145/0124-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 F.2d 871", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1201600 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "873" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/166/0871-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.M. 406", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1565166 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412" }, { "page": "631" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/45/0406-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 N.M. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1577426 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/96/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "615 P.2d 991", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N.M. 674", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 N.M. 700", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568727 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0700-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 N.M. 37", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1555091 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/97/0037-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 6482, "ocr_confidence": 0.745, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.954059671122118e-08, "percentile": 0.5014697768093815 }, "sha256": "da5abbb25635f3858afbf4e933a697a4c240c44c6a4cd7352c1b5c737821b550", "simhash": "1:50be473b6fac015a", "word_count": 1069 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:38.267108+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "RIORDAN and STOWERS, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "In the Matter of the FORFEITURE OF 1982 FORD BRONCO, BROWN AND CREAM IN COLOR, LIC. GJ 3201, VIN: IFMEU15G4CLA67351. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Scott STEVENS, Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nPAYNE, Chief Justice.\nThis appeal challenges the trial court\u2019s order forfeiting a 1982 Ford Bronco to the Clovis Police Department, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-34(D).\nOn December 12, 1982, Wayne Thatcher and Glen Corbin went to Scott Stevens\u2019 house, where they were informed that they could get some marijuana. Stevens told them that it would cost two hundred dollars apiece. After he received four hundred dollars, Stevens drove to Tahoka, Texas to make the purchase. He was to pick up the marijuana on December 13,1982. The next day, he was to give Corbin and Thatcher their shares of the purchase.\nOn December 13, 1982, the Clovis Police were tipped off regarding Stevens\u2019 activities. At 1:30 a.m., December 14, 1983, two officers stopped the 1982 Ford Bronco driven by him. A search warrant was executed and a shopping bag, which contained 11.4 ounces of marijuana, was found in the Bronco.\nStevens was arrested and charged with possession of over eight ounces of marijuana with the intent to distribute in violation of the Controlled Substances Act. In addition, the police department requested judgment forfeiting the Ford Bronco to the Department.\nAlthough the criminal charges were dismissed and filed in an Air Force military court, the trial court ordered the forfeiture. It held that the vehicle was used to transport marijuana for the purpose of sale. We affirm.\nStevens contends that the trial court\u2019s findings of fact are not reasonably supported by the evidence. One finding states that Stevens told Thatcher and Cor-bin that he knew where they could get a \u201clarge amount of marijuana in Texas.\u201d Stevens maintains that the record is silent as to the amount that would be purchased.\nIt is undisputed that 11.4 ounces of marijuana was found in the Bronco. It cost six hundred dollars, according to Stevens. The trial judge could reasonably infer that this is a large amount. The quantity is relevant only to the extent it amounted to a felony (NMSA 1978, 30-31-34(G) (RepLPamp. 1980)), which it did. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 30-31-23(B)(3) (Repl.Pamp.1980). The trial court\u2019s finding is a reasonable inference, and does not merit reversal. Pacheco v. Martinez, 97 N.M. 37, 636 P.2d 308 (Ct.App.1981).\nStevens also argues that the trial court took Thatcher\u2019s testimony out of context. Finding No. 3 is that Thatcher believed that he was purchasing two hundred dollars worth of marijuana from Stevens. Thatcher reiterated the same opinion to Stevens\u2019 attorney on cross-examination. In response to the question, \u201cDid you consider that you were purchasing it from [Stevens]?\u201d, Thatcher said, \u201cI gave him my money, and he was going to give me pot.\u201d Accordingly, this finding is reasonably supported by the evidence.\nStevens also challenges the trial court\u2019s finding that the \u201csole purpose of transportation of the marijuana was to complete the sale.\u201d Stevens alleges that this is an erroneous legal conclusion. His argument is that he, Corbin, and Thatcher were all partners. Title passed to all three upon delivery of the goods to him as an agent in Tahoka, Texas, as it does in a commercial transaction. The sale was completed before transporting the marijuana. Accordingly, Stevens cites State v. Barela, 93 N.M. 700, 604 P.2d 838 (Ct.App.1979), cert. denied, 94 N.M. 674, 615 P.2d 991 (1980) and argues his vehicle is not subject to forfeiture.\nIn Barela, the undercover police agent purchased marijuana from Barela in his kitchen. Then Barela gave the undercover agent a ride from his house, transporting the marijuana. The court of appeals held that Barela\u2019s vehicle was not subject to forfeiture because the sale was completed before the drug was transported.\nStevens\u2019 argument lacks merit. Although Barela held that transportation of the marijuana must be for the purpose of sale, we find this interpretation to be contrary to the meaning of NMSA 1978, Subsection 30-31-34(D) (Repl.Pamp.1980). The statute reads in relevant part:\nThe following are subject to forfeiture:\n******\nD. all conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, which are used, or intended for use, to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation for the purpose of sale of property described in Subsections A or B * * * *\nAccording to our interpretation of Subsection 30-31-34(D), a vehicle is subject to forfeiture if used to transport an illegal substance. The transportation need not be for the purpose of sale. Section 30-31-34 must be read according to its \u201cgrammatical sense.\u201d Aetna Finance Co. v. Gutierrez, 96 N.M. 538, 541, 632 P.2d 1176 (1981). Of primary importance is the rule that a restrictive clause only applies to the words or phrase immediately preceding it, and not to others more remote. In re Goldsworthy\u2019s Estate, 45 N.M. 406, 412, 115 P.2d 627, 631 (1941). A comma must not be placed between the restrictive clause and that which it restricts. Hughes v. Samedan Oil Corp., 166 F.2d 871, 873 (10th Cir.1948); see generally J. Hodges & M. Whitten, Harbrace College Handbook, \u00a7 12d at 120 (7th ed. 1972), which states that restrictive clauses follow and limit the words they modify and are not set off by commas.\nApplying these rules, the restrictive clause at issue in Section 30-31-34 is \u201cfor the purpose of sale.\u201d It is not separated by a comma from \u201cor in any manner to facilitate transportation\u201d, which is the immediately preceding phrase. The clause restricts this phrase. But it does not restrict \u201cto transport\u201d, which is set off by a comma and is more remote. The only way in which the restrictive clause could apply to the phrase \u201cto transport\u201d is if commas were to enclose the clause \u201cfor the purpose of sale.\u201d If so, then the restriction would apply to several antecedents which are themselves separated by a comma. See St. Louis-San Francisco Railroad v. Bengal Lumber Co., 145 Okl. 124, 292 P. 52 (1930).\nThe other issues are moot, given the interpretation we have placed upon the statute.\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court in forfeiting the vehicle.\nRIORDAN and STOWERS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PAYNE, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "James F. McDowell, III, Ted Hartley, Clovis, for appellant.", "Paul Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Ida M. Lujan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Charles J. Plath, Asst. Dist. Atty., Clovis, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "673 P.2d 1310\nIn the Matter of the FORFEITURE OF 1982 FORD BRONCO, BROWN AND CREAM IN COLOR, LIC. GJ 3201, VIN: IFMEU15G4CLA67351. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Scott STEVENS, Appellant.\nNo. 14910.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nDec. 28, 1983.\nJames F. McDowell, III, Ted Hartley, Clovis, for appellant.\nPaul Bardacke, Atty. Gen., Ida M. Lujan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Charles J. Plath, Asst. Dist. Atty., Clovis, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0577-01", "first_page_order": 609, "last_page_order": 611 }