{ "id": 1573407, "name": "STATE v. COYLE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Coyle", "decision_date": "1935-03-06", "docket_number": "No. 4005", "first_page": "151", "last_page": "155", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "39 N.M. 151" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "42 P.2d 770" } ], "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": "35 N. M. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1558012 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/35/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 N. E. 95", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "345 Ill. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5262192 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/345/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 N. E. 687", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 Ill. 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4996428 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/304/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 N. E. 470", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 Ill. 578", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5003899 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/303/0578-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 605, "char_count": 9682, "ocr_confidence": 0.473, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7971241319663036e-07, "percentile": 0.715828220100863 }, "sha256": "acf6293518983c0a769cf85005b49b96f812fbbe794772a552a78108e07301b2", "simhash": "1:44864d6c913e047b", "word_count": 1757 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:01.191463+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SADLER, C. J., and HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. COYLE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WATSON, Justice.\nRay Coyle appeals from a conviction of murder in the first degree and the resulting capital sentence.\nThe verdict probably reflects a determination by the jury that this homicide by shooting was committed while appellant was attempting to perpetrate a felony \u2014 robbery while armed with a deadly weapon. It surely discloses a rejection of appellant\u2019s claim of self-defense. Of the instructions we have heard no complaint.\nThe first point claims error in the admission of this confession, which appellant admits he wrote and signed: \u201cI came to Albuquerque had no money I looked around and in the evening about eight o\u2019clock I held up a filling station and (interlined: \u2018got about $35.00') next I went to a fruit store to hold him up. I went in and to told the two men in there to put up there hands and give me the money, one of the men said I am not afraid of you and picked up a box to throw at me and-1 got rattled and shot to scare him but I hit him. I ran out of the store up to broadway st and then crossed the viadect and then went to my room put my gun in the water box in the bath room.\u201d\nThe objection urged is that the state failed to lay a proper foundation.\nWhen it appeared at the trial that the state proposed to use the confession, the court caused the jury to retire and proceeded to an inquisition as to the competency of the confession. The state produced Mayor Tingley and Chief of Police O\u2019Grady, who were present with the district attorney when the confession was written out. Both testified that no promises or threats were made to their knowledge or in their presence. It is fairly to -be gathered from the testimony of both that appellant acquiesced in a statement made by the district attorney that appellant desired to make a statement and that it was to be made without promise or threat. Mayor Tingley testified further that appellant had just previously asked the district attorney \u201cif any leniency could be had,\u201d and that the answer was that there could be none, or at least no assurance of any. We take it also that appellant had before that broached the matter of leniency to the mayor and had been merely referred to the district attorney.\nIt is not claimed that this showing was insufficient as a foundation. It appeared, however, that a number of other persons were present, in and out at times, during or preceding the writing of the confession. It was objected, and is now urged, that the prosecution could meet the burden upon it only by producing or accounting for those others, who presumably would know something of the circumstances.\nThis is pressed upon us as a general principle, on the authority of three Illinois decisions, the cases of People v. Rogers, 303 Ill. 578, 136 N. E. 470; People v. Sweeney, 304 Ill. 502, 136 N. E. 687, and People v. Cope, 345 Ill. 278, 178 N. E. 95. These cases were unusual in their facts. We find in them no support for appellant\u2019s position.\nAppellant, of course, had the right to rebut this prima facie showing by himself or by others. He chose not to do this. He stood upon the showing made. The court was put to it to rule upon the facts adduced by the state and upon the legal objection made by appellant. The former we deem' sufficient; the latter we think unsound. So we find no error.\nThat appellant suffered no prejudice from the position taken by the able counsel who represented him by designation of the court is quite plain from the subsequent record. He testified in his own behalf and gave his own account of the circumstances attending the confession.\nUnder examination by his counsel, referring to a conversation with Mayor Tingley, in the presence of two patrol officers, thirty or forty minutes before he came to write the confession, he said: \u201cI asked him if he thought I would get any leniency if I would write out a confession, I say \u2018although I am not admitting my guilt.\u2019 He said T don\u2019t blame you for that,* he' said \u2018but I believe if you did the thing and you wrote out a confession that you would get leniency.\u2019 \u201d\nIn his cross-examination we find this:\n\u201cQ. Now, let\u2019s get to the confession. This is your handwriting, isn\u2019t it? A. I believe it is, yes.\n\u201cQ. Signed Ray Coyle? A. Ray Coyle.\n\u201cQ. You wrote that yourself? A. Yes.\n\u201cQ. You were there at the police station when this was written? A. Yes.\n\u201cQ. Do you remember me being called down there? A. I most certainly do.\n\u201cQ. After you had been talking with Mayor Tingley? A. Tes.\n\u201cQ. Of course I don\u2019t know what you and Mayor Tingley talked about but when I got there what time of night was it, do you know? A. Well, I don\u2019t know, somewhere between ten and eleven, I should judge, might have been a little bit earlier.\n\u201cQ. You hadn\u2019t written this yet? A. No sir.\n\u201cQ. You had been talking to them? A. I hadn\u2019t told them nothing.\n\u201cQ. You told them something that afternoon? A. I didn\u2019t tell them a thing.\n\u201cQ. You didn\u2019t give up anything yet? A. No, I didn\u2019t.\n\u201cQ. Then you asked me if you would tell the whole story whether I would recommend p life sentence for you? A. Yes I did.\n\u201cQ. Is that true? A. Yes.\n\u201cQ. What did I tell you, Ray? A. Well, sir, I couldn\u2019t say the words you said, you didn\u2019t speak distinctly, you kind of mumbled, I don\u2019t know what you said.\n\u201cQ. Ridn\u2019t you hear a thing I said, Ray? A. I couldn\u2019t understand what you said. * * *\n\u201cA. The first word you spoke when you came into the room, Mr. Tingley, or whatever his name may be, he asked you if you thought I would get off with a little leniency, and you said \u2018No, Clyde, I can\u2019t make any definite statements,\u2019 and that was the only words I could understand concerning the matter.\n\u201cQ. Was it Clyde asked me or did you ask me? A. Mr. Tingley asked you.\n\u201cQ. And beyond that you didn\u2019t hear me say anything? A. No, sir, you didn\u2019t state anything definitely.\n\u201cQ. Rid we treat you all right there, Ray? Rid anybody mistreat you? A. Not-that I know of, they didn\u2019t.\n\u201cQ. Rid I mistreat you? A. No.\u201d\nIf at the preliminary inquiry appellant had testified exactly as he did later, and had been corroborated by both patrol officers, we cannot doubt that the .confession would have been admitted just as it was. There was no substantial ground for a claim that this man, wise in the ways of crime, confessed from any reasonable expectation of leniency in prosecution.\nIt is next contended that the state -failed in proof of the corpus delicti; the particular claim being that there is no evidence that the death of the deceased was caused by the shot fired by appellant.\nThe shooting was admitted by appellant, who saw the deceased fall. An eyewitness says that the deceased was shot \u201cright dead\u201d; says that he fell \u201con the floor dead\u201d; that he said \u201cnot a word.\u201d A witness who heard the shot and came at once found the deceased still alive and gave these answers:\n\u201cQ. Was he dead or alive? A. He was still alive when I got there.\n\u201cQ. Was he breathing? A. You couldn\u2019t see, his eyes was closed, in a minute or two he opened his mouth and slumped back.\n\u201cQ. Pie died while you were there then? A. Yes.\n\u201cQ. That was immediately after the shooting? A. Yes.\u201d\nThe bullet entered \u201cabout two and a half inches below the anterior wall of the axilla, it passed directly through the body, fractured the sixth rib, and then deflected upwards about three inches and was lodged immediately below the skin.\u201d\nInadvertently, no doubt, the prosecutor failed to obtain the opinion of the autopsy surgeon as to the cause of death, and this alone apparently has suggested the point. We think the fact may be arrived at from circumstantial evidence, and cannot doubt that the circumstances stated warranted the inference.\nThe theory of attempted robbery finds its main support in the testimony of an eyewitness. Relying on physical facts, including the point of entry and course of the bullet, and the position in which the body lay, appellant contends it to have been conclusively demonstrated that the version of the eyewitness is false, and claims further that his own version of the encounter is strongly corroborated. On this premise he argues that the testimony of the state\u2019s witness is so inherently improbable as to be unworthy of belief, and invokes State v. Armijo, 35 N. M. 533, 2 P.(2d) 1075.\nWe find in this no sufficient ground to reverse the judgment or seriously to question the verdict. In a scene so rapidly shifting, one could scarcely be expected to describe positions as if the actors were posed. It may be that at the instant when postures and positions were photographed on the witness\u201d brain, it would have been impossible for the bullet from appellant\u2019s gun to hit the deceased where it did hit him, or to follow the course it did follow. That is not conclusive against the essential truth of the witness\u2019 story. The question was for the- jury, and we have no reason to believe that it was imposed upon.\nThe state was permitted to introduce certain bullets. If all the errors claimed in that connection were to be admitted, we fail to note how appellant can have been prejudiced. As a witness, he admitted shooting the deceased. None of the evidence here in question could have influenced the jury in deciding the issue of self-defense.\nHaving found no error, we necessarily affirm the judgment. It remains for this court to direct execution of the sentence pronounced. A date therefor will be appointed by order in due course.\nIt is so ordered.\nSADLER, C. J., and HUDSPETH, BICKLEY, and ZINN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WATSON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Theodore E. Jones, of Albuquerque, for appellant.", "E. K. Neumann, Atty. Gen., and Quincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "42 P.(2d) 770\nSTATE v. COYLE.\nNo. 4005.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nMarch 6, 1935.\nRehearing Denied April 8, 1935.\nTheodore E. Jones, of Albuquerque, for appellant.\nE. K. Neumann, Atty. Gen., and Quincy D. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State." }, "file_name": "0151-01", "first_page_order": 199, "last_page_order": 203 }