{
  "id": 5356303,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom CONNERS, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Conners",
  "decision_date": "1969-09-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 335",
  "first_page": "662",
  "last_page": "663",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 N.M. 662"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "459 P.2d 461"
    }
  ],
  "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": "159 P.2d 462",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 130,
    "char_count": 1632,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.671,
    "sha256": "9c26007c9caa1446561ef6f56f7532dfb590c51a7150c3fa522ede75aaa4e628",
    "simhash": "1:13c6942710cc5df0",
    "word_count": 246
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:41:23.226975+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "OMAN and HENDLEY, JJ\u201e concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom CONNERS, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nDefendant was charged with issuing two worthless checks totaling in excess of $25.00. The trial court held that the punishment provided by \u00a7 40-49-5 (B), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1969) was unconstitutionally vague and quashed the information. The State appeals.\nState v. Ferris, (N.M.Ct.App.) 159 P.2d 462, decided September 19, 1969, held that the words, \u201ctotal amount of the checks,\u201d appearing in \u00a7 40-49-5, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1969) were unconstitutionally vague. It also held that the offense of issuing worthless checks was charged without reference to penalty provisions, that the unconstitutional \u201ctotaling\u201d provision could he severed and a person could be punished under the remaining provisions of \u00a7 40-49-5, supra.\nState v. Ferris, supra, is applicable. The trial court correctly held that defendant could not be punished under \u00a7 40-49-5(B), supra, by \u201ctotaling\u201d the two checks. However, the trial court erred in quashing the information. Defendant can be punished under the remaining provi\u25a0sions of \u00a7 40-49-5, supra, for each worthless check that he has issued.\nThe order quashing the information is reversed. The cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the information and \u25a0proceed consistently with this opinion.\nIt is so ordered.\nOMAN and HENDLEY, JJ\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Ray Shollenbarger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "William M. Siegenthaler, Artesia, for \u25a0defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "459 P.2d 461\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom CONNERS, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 335.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 26, 1969.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Ray Shollenbarger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.\nWilliam M. Siegenthaler, Artesia, for \u25a0defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0662-01",
  "first_page_order": 718,
  "last_page_order": 719
}