{
  "id": 2805178,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elidoro \"Lolo\" TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tapia",
  "decision_date": "1966-11-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 7808",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "170",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 N.M. 168"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "420 P.2d 436"
    }
  ],
  "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": "77 N.M. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803920
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2805520
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500657
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.M. 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842073
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 N.M. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2803920
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/77/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2805520
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0642-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 384,
    "char_count": 6077,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.66,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.474140541606369e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44535067488490643
    },
    "sha256": "a47d99824ede213b451585c6cbf6522d55b7985dbe5e54c35bf8e5074f8d889d",
    "simhash": "1:9517314a7031ce68",
    "word_count": 994
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:38.028708+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "NOBLE, J.,' concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elidoro \u201cLolo\u201d TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nCHAVEZ, Justice.\nAppellant Eiidoro \u201cLoio\u201d Tapia was. found guilty by a jury of possession of certain narcotic drugs, to-wit, cannabis, with intent to sell in violation of \u00a7 54-7-14, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp. Judgment and sentence were duly entered and appeal is taken therefrom. The appeal is based solely upon the construction of \u00a7\u00a7 54-7-2(15) and 54\u2014 7-2(14), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.\nFloyd Highfill, an expert witness for the State, testified that he is a chemist, having obtained a bachelor\u2019s degree in chemical engineering from the University of New Mexico; that he had worked for Martin and Carlisle Chemical Laboratories, Inc. for approximately five years; that he had made analysis and examined substances for about three and one-half-years, to determine whether or not the substance was cannabis; that he had probably run 300 or 400 tests; that he had testified in various courts as an expert witness; that he ran three chemical tests, being known as the Duquenois, the Boquet and the Ghamrawy, as well as a microscopic examination of the contents of plaintiff\u2019s exhibit 1, and that the tests' were positive for cannabis.\nAppellant contends there is no evidence to show that the substance which appellant possessed was cannabis sativa L., or a substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from it. Appellant argues that \u00a7 54-7-2(15), supra, which defines \u201cNarcotic drugs\u201d within the Narcotic Drug Act (\u00a7\u00a7 54-7-1 through 54\u20147-51, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.) as \u201ccoca leaves, opium, and cannabis, and every substance neither chemically nor physically distinguishable from them\u201d is limited by \u00a7 54-7-2 (14), supra, which states that \u201c 'Cannabis\u2019 includes all parts of the plant cannabis sativa L., * * Appellant thus concludes that the evidence must show that the substance involved is not chemically or physically distinguishable from cannabis sativa L., and that appellee\u2019s expert witness failed to do so.\nSince the appeal of the instant case, this court has answered appellant\u2019s contention in State v. Romero, 74 N.M. 642, 397 P.2d 26. In Romero, we concluded that \u00a7 54-7-2(14), supra, is a specification of what the term \u201ccannabis\u201d includes, and held that \u00a7 54-7-2(15), supra, is the controlling section. That section makes cannabis, or any substance not chemically or physically distinguishable from cannabis, a narcotic drug. In Romero, w\u00e9 also found, as a matter of law, that cannabis, cannabis sativa L. and cannabis indica are identical.\nAppellant urges reconsideration of our conclusion in State v. Romero, supra, and contends that the fact that the same legislature enacted \u00a7\u00a7 54-7-2 and 54-7-14, supra, as well as \u00a7\u00a7 54-5-14 and 54-5-15, N.M. S.A., 1953 Comp., which control cannabis indica, indicates that the legislature intended that \u00a7 54-7-14, supra, pertains solely to cannabis sativa L.\nIn State v. Chavez, 77 N.M. 79, 419 P.2d 456 (No. 7817, filed October 24, 1966), we said that when the legislature amended \u00a7 54-7-15, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., the provision fixing the penalty for violation of \u00a7 54-7-14, supra, it impli.edly intended that its last expression would control.\nThe conviction in the instant case was based on the applicable statute and we find no error.\nIt is clear that appellee\u2019s expert witness identified the substance involved as cannabis leaves, or at least a substance neither chemically or physically distinguishable from cannabis. This was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the substance was a \u201cnarcotic drug\u201d as the term is used in \u00a7 54-7-14, supra. Because of the broad statutory definition of \u201cnarcotic drug\u201d and our conclusions above, appellant\u2019s contention that appellee was required to show that the substance was sown or cultivated, as indicated by the name \u201csativa,\u201d is without merit.\nThe judgment of the district court is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nNOBLE, J.,' concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CHAVEZ, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "MOISE, Justice\n(concurring specially).\nThis court held in State v. Romero, 74 N.M. 642, 397 P.2d 26, that marijuana, cannabis, cannabis sativa L. and cannabis indica were identical. In State v. Chavez, 77 N.M. 79, 419 P.2d 456, No. 7817, decided October 24, 1966, the court concluded that prosecution of the crime of possession of marijuana with intent to sell was proper under \u00a7' 54-7-14, N.M.S.A.1953, being the uniform narcotics act. I dissented because it seemed to me that under the interpretation placed on \u00a7 54\u20147-14, supra, in State v. Romero, supra, that section proscribed the same conduct as was prohibited by \u00a7 54-5-14, N.M.S.A.1953, and the first being a general act and the latter a special act, the special act should control over the -general under the rule stated in State v. Blevins, 40 N.M. 367, 60 P.2d 208, and followed in State v. Lujan, 76 N.M. 111, 412 P.2d 405.\nIt now appears that \u00a7 54-7-2(14), N.M. S.A.1953, as it read when the offense here prosecuted took place, limits \u201ccannabis\u201d for which the possession for sale, and sale, is made a crime under \u00a7 54-7-14, supra, to \u201call parts of the plant cannabis sativa L:\u201d Had we not already decided in State v. Romero, supra, that all types of cannabis were included as narcotics under \u00a7 54-7-14, supra, I would suggest that this latter section could be construed to cover sativa L. -specifically defined as cannabis, and \u00a7 54-5-14, supra, be determined to cover all other species or forms of marijuana. However, since State v. Romero, supra, holds prosecution proper under \u00a7 54\u20147-14, the conclusion that no error is present here must follow. Accordingly, while still being convinced of the correctness of my position in State v. Chavez, supra, and that the distinction herein noted could explain the legislative purpose in adopting the two statutes, I must bow to the decisions of the majority, and specially concur in the affirmance herein.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "MOISE, Justice"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Roy G. Hill, Frank Bachicha, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.",
      "Melvin T. Yost, Alfred P, Whittaker, Santa Fe, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "420 P.2d 436\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Elidoro \u201cLolo\u201d TAPIA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7808.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nNov. 21, 1966.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Roy G. Hill, Frank Bachicha, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee.\nMelvin T. Yost, Alfred P, Whittaker, Santa Fe, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 202
}