{ "id": 5357282, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jake Leo BRITO, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brito", "decision_date": "1969-03-21", "docket_number": "No. 295", "first_page": "166", "last_page": "168", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "80 N.M. 166" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "452 P.2d 694" } ], "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": "134 P. 209", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.M. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 4696515 ], "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/18/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 N.M. 616", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1571504 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/41/0616-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.M. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5370979 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/75/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 108", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5322263 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0108-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 260, "char_count": 3263, "ocr_confidence": 0.657, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.259244762335987e-08, "percentile": 0.4327256145049383 }, "sha256": "e7b404ca07c8e85c956127b5b4d60e0b6bd2e5751882bf153fadfd6152ca94a2", "simhash": "1:2718b8e2ad3bd838", "word_count": 533 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:41:23.226975+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "SPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jake Leo BRITO, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nDefendant shot and severely wounded Robert Lee Patterson. He seeks a reversal of his conviction of aggravated assault. He contends there is a lack of substantial evidence to show either his intent or his motive in shooting his victim.\nThe applicable portion of \u00a7 40A-3-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6) reads:\n\u201cAggravated assault consists of either: A. unlawfully assaulting or striking at another with a deadly weapon;\u201d\nIntent.\nIn determining whether there is substantial evidence that defendant intended to unlawfully assault Patterson with his .38 revolver, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. We resolve conflicts and indulge all permissible inferences in favor of the verdict. State v. McAfee, 78 N.M. 108, 428 P.2d 647 (1967).\nThere being no direct proof of intent, it must be inferred from the acts and conducts of the parties. This circumstantial proof must be inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of defendant\u2019s innocence. See State v. Seal, 75 N.M. 608, 409 P.2d 128 (1965).\nThe circumstances shown by the evidence are:\nDefendant was sitting in his car at a service station. Patterson came up to the car and offered defendant a beer. Defendant told Patterson to leave but he didn\u2019t do so. Defendant then shot Patterson. The revolver was within one foot of Patterson\u2019s shirt when it was fired; Patterson fell to the ground. Defendant said, \u201cGet up, cabr\u00f3n [son of a bitch], I didn\u2019t do you anything.\u201d Defendant got up and walked or staggered out of sight behind the service station. Defendant and his girl friend \u201c * * * went looking for him afterwards. * * * \u201d They couldn\u2019t locate Patterson. Patterson said he was \u201c * * * lying down under some weeds so they couldn\u2019t see me, * * * \u201d The bullet struck Patterson in the side of the neck.\nThis evidence shows four acts of defendant \u2014 (1) he told Patterson to leave; (2) he fired the revolver within one foot of and in the direction of Patterson; (3) he called Patterson a son of a bitch and told him to get up; and, (4) he looked for Patterson after Patterson went behind the service station. The first three acts, considered together, are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of defendant\u2019s innocence. These circumstances are substantial evidence that defendant intended to shoot Patterson.\nMotive.\nDefendant claims that no motive was proven. Proof of motive is not indispensable to conviction. State v. Tapia, 41 N.M. 616, 72 P.2d 1087 (1937). As stated in State v. Alva, 18 N.M. 143, 134 P. 209 (1913):\n\u201c * * * the state is not required to prove a motive for the crime, if without this the evidence is sufficient to show that the act was done by the accused.\u201d\nHere, there is no contention that 'defendant did not shoot Patterson. The State was not required to prove motive. Thus, it makes no difference, in this appeal, whether motive was proved.\nThe judgment and sentence are affirmed.\nIt is. so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hilario Rubio, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.", "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Justin Reid, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "452 P.2d 694\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jake Leo BRITO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 295.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 21, 1969.\nHilario Rubio, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Justin Reid, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0166-01", "first_page_order": 222, "last_page_order": 224 }