{
  "id": 5322834,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Verdugo",
  "decision_date": "1968-02-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 121",
  "first_page": "762",
  "last_page": "763",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.M. 762"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "438 P.2d 172"
    }
  ],
  "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": "35 P.2d 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1455388,
        1559221
      ],
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/okla-crim/56/0139-01",
        "/nm/38/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 N.M. 462",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1559221
      ],
      "year": 1934,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/38/0462-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5324202
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 N.M. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2788079
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/69/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.M. 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1578340
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/51/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.M. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2716134
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/67/0260-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 289,
    "char_count": 3821,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.659,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.433527687882413e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6517526697502442
    },
    "sha256": "2dc48bc5812b5dd54b46dc6bd81d61c786baadbb4b4774458718155b904d61bf",
    "simhash": "1:9120d3a23d05e964",
    "word_count": 647
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:27:10.359171+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SPIESS, C. J., and OM\u00c1N, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nConvicted of narcotic drug offenses contrary to \u00a7\u00a7 54-7-13 and 54-7-14, N.M. S.A. 1953, defendant appeals. He contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial.\nThe motion for a mistrial is based on answers given by prospective jurors in response to questions of the trial court.\nMrs. Gomez stated that defendant\u2019s name \u201ccame up in another trial on marijuana, I thought.\u201d The trial court excused Mrs. Gomez. Subsequently, four other prospective jurors \u201cremembered the defendant\u2019s name came up\u201d in another trial. The trial court excused these prospective jurors. The above answers were given in the presence and presumably the hearing of other members of the jury panel.\nDefendant contends that these answers denied him a fair and impartial trial. Defendant was charged with acts involving heroin. He asserts that Mrs. Gomez\u2019 response concerning marijuana put \u201cthis thought in their minds\u201d and thus influenced other members of the jury panel to his prejudice. He asserts that the answers of the other four prospective jurors related to Mrs. Gomez\u2019 comment and on this basis the jury could assume the defendant here was a defendant in the other case. Thus, defendant contends that answers of persons who did not serve as jurors so influenced the persons selected as jurors that the jury was not impartial.\nNew Mexico Constitution Article II, \u00a7 14 guarantees defendant trial by an impartial jury. This means a jury \u201cthat does not favor one side more than another, treats all alike, is unbiased, equitable, fair and just.\u201d State v. McFall, 67 N.M. 260, 354 P.2d 547 (1960). If the members of the jury did not have these qualifications, defendant was denied an impartial jury.\nIt is the duty of the trial court to see that there is a fair and impartial jury. State v. Sims, 51 N.M. 467, 188 P.2d 177 (1947). In doing so it must exercise discretion. The trial court\u2019s decision in this regard \u201cwill not be disturbed unless the error is manifest, or there is a clear abuse of discretion.\u201d State v. McFall, supra.\nA similar rule is applicable to motions for mistrial. Transwestern Pipe Line Co. v. Yandell, 69 N.M. 448, 367 P.2d 938 (1961) states:\n\u201c * * * A motion to declare a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and is reviewable only for an abuse thereof. * * * The trial judge is in a much better position to know whether a miscarriage of justice has taken place and his opinion is entitled to great weight in the absence of a clearly erroneous decision. * * * \u201d\nAll prospective jurors were advised that they were to weigh the evidence fairly and impartially and decide the case in the light of the evidence and the instructions of the court. By their responses on voir dire the jurors selected indicated they would do so.\nThe answers given by the five excused prospective jurors do not identify defendant as a defendant in this other case, which might have involved marijuana. Defendant\u2019s name had been mentioned, but in what context we do not know. Nothing in the record indicates the jurors selected were influenced by these answers or were other than impartial in reaching their verdict.\nIt was neither manifest error nor an abuse of discretion to select a jury from persons who heard the answers of the five excused panel members. See State v. Chavez, 78 N.M. 446, 432 P.2d 411 (1967); State v. McFall, supra; State v. Burrus, 38 N.M. 462, 35 P.2d 285 (1934).\nThe judgment and sentence are affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and OM\u00c1N, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John M. Lenko, Lenko & Galvan, Las Cruces, for appellant. |",
      "Boston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Donald W. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "438 P.2d 172\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Manuel VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 121.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nFeb. 16, 1968.\nJohn M. Lenko, Lenko & Galvan, Las Cruces, for appellant. |\nBoston E. Witt, Atty. Gen., Donald W. Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0762-01",
  "first_page_order": 802,
  "last_page_order": 803
}