{
  "id": 1556125,
  "name": "STATE v. SCHULTZ",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Schultz",
  "decision_date": "1929-07-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 3359",
  "first_page": "214",
  "last_page": "215",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.M. 214"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "279 P. 561"
    }
  ],
  "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": "198 P. 529",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N. M. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841575
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/27/0145-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 96,
    "char_count": 794,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.706,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.646299337626634e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4912879090634242
    },
    "sha256": "0c7b7c541173b8bfe50385988e9fda842c589a70efcaed48ff0a9e2a698970bf",
    "simhash": "1:7ce616e93fd54888",
    "word_count": 135
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:24.898591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, J, concur.",
      "CATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SCHULTZ."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION OF THE COURT\nWATSON, J.\nAppellant was. convicted of embezzlement.\nWe find ho merit in the contention based upon the refusal of requested instructions. Their subject-matter was sufficiently included in instructions given.\nOn cross-examination the court permitted appellant to be asked whether he had not taken mortgaged property out of the state. The ruling was no doubt made on the authority of State v. Bailey, 27 N. M. 145, 198 P. 529, which seems to justify it.\nThe judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.\nBICKLEY, C. J., and PARKER, J, concur.\nCATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "H. B. Woodward, of Clayton, for appellant.",
      "Robert C. Dow, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "[No. 3359.\nJuly 24, 1929.]\nSTATE v. SCHULTZ.\n[279 Pac. 561.]\nH. B. Woodward, of Clayton, for appellant.\nRobert C. Dow, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0214-01",
  "first_page_order": 234,
  "last_page_order": 235
}