{
  "id": 5326226,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gonzales",
  "decision_date": "1967-07-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 7970",
  "first_page": "218",
  "last_page": "219",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.M. 218"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "430 P.2d 376"
    }
  ],
  "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": "78 A.L.R.2d 778",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 A.L.R.2d 775",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 Colo. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        73539
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/142/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 N.E. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1901,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ohio St. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        952881
      ],
      "year": 1901,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/64/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 N.M. 15",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1579470
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/52/0015-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 N.M. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1569804
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1937,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/42/0017-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 P. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.M. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841435
      ],
      "year": 1924,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/30/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500834
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 376",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8502468
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0376-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 291",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8501892
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "298"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0291-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8503685
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 134",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500787
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0134-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500410
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "380 U.S. 609",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524757
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/380/0609-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 373,
    "char_count": 4508,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.679,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.890741471745438e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7289614182139577
    },
    "sha256": "9d05b53297fc1222afcc78a7936aff1bd17f96fb9a92ad052fa36be193a5b218",
    "simhash": "1:2366d88e33852842",
    "word_count": 755
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:10.359171+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "CHAVEZ, C. J, and RICHARD A. STANLEY, District Judge, concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nMOISE, Justice.\nDefendant complains of his conviction on charges of burglary (\u00a7 40A-16-3, N.M. S.A.1953) and larceny (\u00a7 40A-16-1, N.M.S. A.1953). He first contends, relying on Griffin v. State of California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S.Ct. 1229, 14 L.Ed.2d 106 (1966), that he was denied due process of law because of instructions to the jury concerning comments made by the district attorney on defendant\u2019s failure to testify during the proceedings. See State v. Miller, 76 N.M. 62, 412 P.2d 240 (1966), and State v. Flores, 76 N.M. 134, 412 P.2d 560 (1966), where this court reversed convictions on the authority of Griffin v. State of California, supra.\nAside from a general comment by the trial judge at the time of sentencing, to the effect that the decision in Griffin v. State .of California, supra, would in the future \u2022require a- change in practice so that the instruction previously given could no longer be used, nor would comment by the district attorney concerning a defendant\u2019s failure to testify be permitted, there is nothing in the record disclosing any comments by anyone concerning the matter. This court has twice considered and twice denied error .where a claim similar to that here made had no support in the record. State v. Sandoval, 76 N.M. 570, 417 P.2d 56 (1966); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 298, 414 P.2d 512 (1966).\nThe defendant also complains of the following instruction:\n\u201cThe Court instructs you that the defendant may, if he sees fit, become a witness in his own behalf, but the law imposes no obligation upon him to testify in his own behalf, or as to any material fact in the case, and you shall indulge in no presumption against him because of the failure of the defendant to take the witness stand,in this case, but such fact can be the subject of reasonable comment or argument.\u201d\nThis court, in State v. James, 76 N.M. 376, 415 P.2d 350 (1966), ruled upon an identical instruction and held, that where no comment had been made by the judge or prosecutor concerning defendant\u2019s failure to take the stand, no error had been committed. Also, see State v. Buchanan, 76 N.M. 141, 412 P.2d 565 (1966); State v. Sandoval, supra; State v. Paris, supra.We see no merit in defendant\u2019s first contention.\n\u25a0 Defendant- next contends that the act he was charged with in Count I \u2014 entry and-theft from a food store \u2014 did not constitute the crime of burglary as defined, by statute. Section 40A-16-3, supra, provides as follows:\n\u201cBurglary consists of the unauthorized entry of any vehicle, watercraft, aircraft, dwelling or other structure, movable or immovable, with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.\u201d\nDefendant argues that the rule of construction known as \u201cejusdem generis\u201d' .forecloses the inclusion of a food store within the term \u201cother structure\u201d as used in the above statute. We disagree. Ejusdem generis, like other rules of construction, is resorted to merely as an aid in determining legislative intent. Grafe v. Delgado, 30 N.M. 150, 228 P. 601 (1924); State v. Ornelas, 42 N.M. 17, 74 P.2d 723 (1937). We are impressed that the legislature intended the term \u201cother structure\u201d to be construed in its literal sense and that it not be limited by the specific language preceding it. We have held that it is proper for this court to consider prior and subsequent statutes in pari materia to de termine legislative intent. State v. Prince, 52 N.M. 15, 189 P.2d 993 (1948). A comparison of \u00a7 40A-16-3, supra, and the statutes concerning burglary and unlawful entry that existed prior to 1963 (\u00a7\u00a7 40-9-1, 40-9-6, 40-9-7, 40-9-10, N.M.S.A.1953) indicates that the new section is a consolidation of the old statutes and does not evidence an intention of the legislature to exclude from the crime of burglary unauthorized entries to structures other than dwellings. We find support in other jurisdictions that have refused to so construe their statutes in comparable situations. See State v. Johnson, 64 Ohio St. 270, 60 N.E. 219 (1901); Sanchez v. People, 142 Colo. 58, 349 P.2d 561, 78 A.L.R.2d 775 (1960); Annot., 78 A.L.R.2d 778 (1961).\nThe judgment appealed from is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nCHAVEZ, C. J, and RICHARD A. STANLEY, District Judge, concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MOISE, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hinkle, Bondurant & Christy, Lewis C. Cox, Jr., Roswell, for appellant.",
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O\u2019Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "430 P.2d 376\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles GONZALES, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 7970.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nJuly 24, 1967.\nHinkle, Bondurant & Christy, Lewis C. Cox, Jr., Roswell, for appellant.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Gary O\u2019Dowd, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0218-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 259
}