{
  "id": 1559093,
  "name": "STATE v. SOLIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Solis",
  "decision_date": "1934-10-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 3987",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "540",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 N.M. 538"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "37 P.2d 539"
    }
  ],
  "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": "279 P. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556088,
        1556125
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/34/0215-01",
        "/nm/34/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N. M. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556125
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/34/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 P. 687",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N. M. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842506
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/27/0466-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 P. 433",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N. M. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4733271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/25/0395-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 P. 258",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N. M. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2386927
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/21/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 P. 76",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N. M. 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2387452
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/21/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 P. 759",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N. M. 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841306
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/30/0102-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3140,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.530474434459698e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8124276743547597
    },
    "sha256": "45bc5d8eba02d375acf34a2c15ba47c7371e0ded95c62caa2e336347ecbef1b7",
    "simhash": "1:ee4d2cb57034adba",
    "word_count": 558
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:00.087305+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SADLER, HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SOLIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WATSON, Chief Justice.\nAppellant was convicted upon an information charging that, with intent to kill one Harper, he made an assault upon him with a pistol, shooting him twice. 1929 Comp. St. \u00a7 35-605. The plea was not guilty and appellant attempted to establish self-defense.\nA state\u2019s witness was permitted to answer a question as to Harper\u2019s \u201ccondition now, as to whether he is able bodied.\u201d The answer could throw little, if any, light upon appellant\u2019s intent, and might weil have been excluded. However, Harper was in court and a witness, and his condition was fairly manifest to the jury. The court admitted the answer, remarking that it was \u201charmless.\u201d In this we find no reversible error.\nHarper\u2019s scars were exhibited to the jury and, as well, the overalls he wore at the time. These were to support a theory of the state that the second shot was fired and took effect after Harper had fallen from the first. This demonstrative evidence was material both as to intent and as to self-defense. Cf. State v. Trujillo et al., 30 N. M. 102, 227 P. 759; State v. McKnight, 21 N. M. 14, 153 P. 76.\nHarper admitted that he was armed at the time with a pistol. It was exhibited. The state sought to show that it had not been fired. Six shells, claimed to have been taken from it, were offered by the state and rejected because not sufficiently identified. Appellant complains of a refusal to strike the preliminary examination, during which it crept in that the offered shells were in number 6, the capacity of the gun, and loaded. The evidence was clearly nonprejudicial. It could have been no more than anticipatory of some claim that Harper had discharged the pistol. There is not a scintilla of evidence to that effect.\nIn the course of cross-examination, appellant was asked: \u201cAnd as soon as you came here you became a law violator didn\u2019t you? * * * You became a consistent law violator f^om the moment you got in Bernalillo County?\u201d Complaint is made of the overruling of the objections, and the refusal to strike the answer, \u201cNo sir.\u201d We find no error here. Cf. State v. Perkins, 21 N. M. 135, 153 P. 258; State v. Parks, 25 N. M. 395, 183 P. 433; State v. Bailey, 27 N. M. 145, 198 P. 529; State v. Clevenger, 27 N. M. 466, 202 P. 687; State v. Schultz, 34 N. M. 214, 279 P. 561. Several other objections to the cross-examination are met by the principle laid down in these cases that a witness\u2019 credibility may be affected by obtaining admissions of wrong doing if the examiner is able to extract them.\nIn view of the state\u2019s theory, for which there .was some evidence, that appellant intended to kill Harper as a stool pigeon, it was not error to permit inquiry, on cross-examination of appellant, whether he had not been indicted the day before the assault for a prohibition violation.\nThe judgment will he affirmed. It is so ordered.\nSADLER, HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WATSON, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George R. Craig, of Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "E. K. Neumann, Atty. Gen., and Quincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "37 P.(2d) 539\nSTATE v. SOLIS.\nNo. 3987.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nOct. 22, 1934.\nRehearing Denied Nov. 21, 1934.\nGeorge R. Craig, of Albuquerque, for appellant.\nE. K. Neumann, Atty. Gen., and Quincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen. for the State."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 574,
  "last_page_order": 576
}