{
  "id": 5324261,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Haskel PUTMAN, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Putman",
  "decision_date": "1967-10-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 56",
  "first_page": "552",
  "last_page": "553",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.M. 552"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "434 P.2d 77"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "19 N.E.2d 267",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1939,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 Ind. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1689947
      ],
      "year": 1939,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/215/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841201
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8503872
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0602-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 313,
    "char_count": 5006,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.634,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.514060899724456e-08,
      "percentile": 0.34459171171755576
    },
    "sha256": "fcedec193e225825ea5b9b4367cb4de5abc005d76cff292e2388f5048789b742",
    "simhash": "1:347eebea25433de4",
    "word_count": 851
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:10.359171+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENSLEY, Jr., C. J., concurs.",
      "SPIES S, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Haskel PUTMAN, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\n\u25a0 WOOD, Judge.\nBy Count II of the information, defendant was accused of sodomy. The information was supplemented by a bill of particulars. The trial court sustained defendant\u2019s motion to quash on the ground that the acts alleged did not constitute sodomy. The State appeals under \u00a7 21-2-1(5) (4), N.M.S.A. 1953.\nThe crime of sodomy is defined in \u00a7 40A-9-6, N.M.S.A. 1953. The portion of the statute applicable here reads:\n\u201cSodomy consists of a person intentionally taking into his or her mouth or anus the sexual organ of any other person\nThe information charges:\n\u201c * * * that said defendant did take into his mouth the sexual organ of another person. * * * \u201d\n' Omitting the name of the female, the bill of particulars states:\n\u201c * * *' the manner in which the defendant committed the act of sodomy upon her, is that he placed his tongue within her vagina.\u201d\nNo issue is presented as to (1) whether there is a repugnancy between the allegations of the information and the bill of particulars, (2) whether uncertainty results in the information because of the acts alleged in the bill of particulars or (3) whether the acts alleged in the bill of particulars are surplusage. See \u00a7 41-6-35, 41-6-36, 41-6-37 and 41-6-38, N.M.S.A. 1953.\nThe issue is whether the acts alleged constitute the offense of sodomy. In ruling that the acts alleged did not constitute the offense, the trial court considered only the-acts alleged in the bill of particulars; it did not consider the acts alleged in the information.\nIn determining whether the acts alleged constitute the offense, the information and the bill of particulars are to be read together as a single instrument. Norton v. Reese, 76 N.M. 602, 417 P.2d 205 (1966). When read together, if the acts alleged do not constitute the offense charged, the information may be quashed. Section 41-6-9, N.M.S.A. 1953.\nOur statute applies to acts per os as well as acts per anum. Compare Bennett v. Abram, 57 N.M. 28, 253 P.2d 316 (1953), which was decided before our statutory definition was enacted.\nOur act defines sodomy to include a taking into the mouth \u201cthe sexual organ of any other person.\u201d The statute is not limited to the sexual organ of the male. \u201cAny other person\u201d includes male and female. Compare Connell v. State, 215 Ind. 318, 19 N.E.2d 267 (1939).\nReading the information and the bill of particulars together, defendant is accused of acts constituting the offense of sodomy.\nThe order quashing Count II of the information is reversed. The case is remanded with instructions to set the order aside and to reinstate the charge.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENSLEY, Jr., C. J., concurs.\nSPIES S, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "\u25a0 WOOD, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "SPIESS, Judge, Court of Appeals\n(concurring in part and dissenting in part).\nI am unable to concur in the result reached by the majority in this case. As I read the record and the briefs only two questions are submitted and argued by the parties.\nFirst, whether the Act, \u00a7 40A-9-6, N.M. S.A. 1953, relates only to the male sexual organ.\nSecond, whether the act specified in the bill of particulars charged sodomy as such crime is defined by \u00a7 40A-9-6, supra. \u2018\nI have no difficulty in agreeing with, the majority that the statute includes both' male and female sexual organs.\nIt appears to me the majority take the position that in sustaining the motion to quash the trial court erroneously limited' consideration to the allegations contained in the bill of particulars and consideration should have likewise been given to the charge in the information to the end that if either instrument contains a specification of acts sufficient to charge the crime the motion should have been denied.\nThis proposition was neither suggested, argued, or submitted by the parties as I read the briefs.\nTo my mind the parties and the trial court treated the acts alleged in the bill as the particular acts upon which the prosecution was based and as superseding those alleged in the information. Consequently, for the purpose of decision in this case I feel we should so treat these pleadings.\nI take the position that as a general rule this court should confine its decision to the errors asserted and issues raised by the parties. It, of course, follows that through adherence to this rule the right of parties to argue questions upon which a decision is based will not be denied.\nAs I read the language of the statute, \u00a7 40A-9-6, supra, together with the acts specified in the bill of particulars it appears obvious to me that if the defendant did commit the act so specified the crime of sodomy t as the same is defined by the statute was not committed.\nFor the reasons stated I would affirm the order of the trial court.",
        "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part",
        "author": "SPIESS, Judge, Court of Appeals"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Joel M. Carson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant.",
      "Foster' Windham, Carlsbad, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "434 P.2d 77\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Haskel PUTMAN, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 56.\nCourt of Appeals of Kfew Mexico.\nOct. 6, 1967.\nRehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1967.\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Joel M. Carson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant.\nFoster' Windham, Carlsbad, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0552-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 593
}