{ "id": 5355345, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Austin", "decision_date": "1969-09-19", "docket_number": "No. 359", "first_page": "748", "last_page": "751", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "80 N.M. 748" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "461 P.2d 230" } ], "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": "175 S.W. 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 Ky. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ky.", "case_ids": [ 4436551 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ky/164/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 N.W.2d 154", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 Wis.2d 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8670641 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis-2d/29/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 L.Ed. 288", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "342 U.S. 246", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 641097 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/342/0246-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5355298 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5357582 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.M. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1565191 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1941, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/45/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 App.D.C. 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "App. D.C.", "case_ids": [ 1785489 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/app-dc/42/0350-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 F.2d 103", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1841926 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/45/0103-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 A.L.R. 1301", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "338 Mo. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 1897639 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mo/338/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 So. 270", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "case_ids": [ 3638987 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/223/0346-02" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ala. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 3636561, 3638987 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ala/223/0346-01", "/ala/223/0346-02" ] }, { "cite": "167 P. 714", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "23 N.M. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2396335 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/23/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 176", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2849660 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0176-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 A.L.R. 1527", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 P. 988", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 N.M. 477", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8842554 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/27/0477-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.M. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2738947 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/79/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 N.M. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1582002 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1950, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "289" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/54/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 N.M. 300", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5346230 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/64/0300-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 468, "char_count": 6638, "ocr_confidence": 0.69, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.966104051559787e-07, "percentile": 0.9537546397492672 }, "sha256": "a691bbf5725b16ad98b9c0aa6d5249053d7c2a918bb35d50c742dbe069d4a613", "simhash": "1:9ae78f609fc76bb4", "word_count": 1079 }, "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 WOOD, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nDefendant appeals his conviction of the unlawful taking of a vehicle, \u00a7 64-9-4(a), N.M.S.A. (Repl.Vol. pt. 2). That statute provides:\n\u201cUNLAWFUL TAKING OF A VEHICLE. \u2014 (a) Any person who shall take any vehicle intentionally and without consent of the owner thereof shall be guilty of a felony. The consent of the owner of the vehicle to its taking shall not in case be presumed or implied because of such owner\u2019s consent on a previous occasion to the taking of such vehicle by the same or a different person.\u201d\nDefendant attacks the constitutionality of the statute on the ground that:\n\u201cTHE STATUTE UNDER WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED AND CONVICTED IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THE FINDING OF ANY CRIMINAL INTENT AND INNOCENTLY CONVERTED ANOTHERS [sic] AUTOMOBILE.\u201d\nWe affirm for the reasons hereinafter stated.\nAlthough this is raised for the first time on appeal, the question raised is jurisdictional and will be considered on review. Section 21-2-1(20) (1), N.M.S.A.1953. State v. Barreras, 64 N.M. 300, 328 P.2d 74 (1958); State v. Sena, 54 N.M. 213, 219 P.2d 287, 289 (1950). See Barnett v. Cal M, Inc., 79 N.M. 553, 445 P.2d 974 (1968).\nAs stated in State v. Diamond, 27 N.M. 477, 202 P. 988, 20 A.L.R. 1527 (1921):\n\u201c * * * [W] here the alleged unconstitutional character of a statute concerns a matter of evidence, rather than the offense itself, the constitutional question cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. But- in this case .a different proposition is involved. Here the question of the constitutionality of the act involved determines whether a crime has been committed. If the law is void, no crime has been committed and none can be committed under it, and the court has no jurisdiction over the person of the defendant or the subject-matter of .the cause. It is a proceeding to punish a mail where there is no law authorizing the same. In such a case it would seem that the question is jurisdictional and may be raised for the first time on appeal, and.we so hold.\u201d\nDefendant .contends the statute is vague and uncertain in its .meaning. Defendant bases this contention on the fact that other statutes relating to conversion of personal property utilize . the words, \u201cstealing,\u201d \u201ctheft,\u201d, \u201cfraudulent conduct, practices or representations\u201d and \u201cfraudulent intent.\u201d Defendant contends that since the Legislature uses the-wbrd \u201csteal\u201d in \u00a7 64-9-4(b), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 9 pt. 2), .when referring to the taking of an . automobile part and used the word \u201cintentional\u201d in the taking of an automobile, then the Legislature intended to eliminate the \u201celement of unlawful taking required to constitute larceny of an automobile under our prior larceny statute, Laws 1921, ch. 123, \u00a7 1.\u201d\nThus, defendant raises contentions concerning criminal intent and the intent to commit larceny.\nAs stated in State v. Craig, 70 N.M. 176, 372 P.2d 128 (1962):\n\u201c 'Generally speaking, when an act is prohibited, and made punishable by statute only, the statute is to be construed -in the light of the common law and the existence of a criminal intent is to be regarded as essential, although the terms of the statute do not require it. State v. Blacklock, 23 N.M. 251, 167 P. 714; Smith v. State, 223 Ala. 346, 136 So. 270; State v. Hefflin, 338 Mo. 236, 89 S.W.2d 938, 103 A.L.R. 1301; Youngs Rubber Corp. v. C. I. Lee & Co., 2 Cir., 45 F.2d 103. But the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal, without regard to the intent with which such act is done; but in such case it must clearly appear from the Act (from its language or clear inference) that such was the legislative intent. Masters v. United States, 42 App.D.C. 350, Ann.Cas.1916A, 1243.\u2019\u201d\nIs \u201ccriminal intent\u201d required? It is a matter of construction. Even after comparing \u00a7 64\u20149-4(a), supra, with other statutes concerning conversion of p\u00e9rsonal property, it does not \u201cclearly appear\u201d that the Legislature intended to eliminate criminal intent. Criminal intent is an element of the crime established by \u00a7 64\u20149-4(a), supra. State v. Craig, supra; State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 118 P.2d 280 (1941); State v. Davis, 80 N.M. 347, 455 P.2d 851 (Ct.App.1969). Defendant\u2019s apprehension that a person who by mistake, or in the honest belief that the car was owned by him, took a vehicle without the consent of the owner might be punished, even though innocent, is unwarranted. Criminal intent is required.\nWhat is criminal intent ? It is more-than \u201cintentional\u201d taking. It is a mental\u2019 state. Compare State v. Dennis, 80 N.M. 262, 454 P.2d 276 (Ct.App.1969). This, mental state is a conscious wrongdoing. Concerning this conscious wrongdoing, Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952) states:\n\u201c* * * courts of various jurisdictions, and for the purposes of different offenses, have devised working formulae, if not scientific ones, for the instruction, of juries around such terms as \u2018felonious intent,\u2019 \u2018criminal intent,\u2019 \u2018malice aforethought,\u2019 \u2018guilty knowledge,\u2019 \u2018fraudulent intent,\u2019 \u2018wilfulness,\u2019 \u2018scienter,\u2019 to denote-guilty knowledge, * *\nCompare State v. Craig, supra.\nThe trial court instructed the jury that the material allegations of the charge included the taking of the vehicle knowingly and feloniously. It defined \u201cknowingly\u201d to-mean with knowledge of the nature of the act done and \u201cfeloniously\u201d to mean wrongfully and against the law. Defendant has been found guilty of conscious wrongdoing in taking the vehicle.\nLarceny includes the concept of criminal intent. See Morissette v. United States, supra. In addition, it includes an intention to permanently deprive the owner of possession of his property. Such intention, to permanently deprive the owner of possession, is not an essential element of a statute prohibiting the intentional taking of a vehicle without the consent of the owner. Bass v. State, 29 Wis.2d 201, 138 N.W.2d 154 (1965); Singleton v. Commonwealth, 164 Ky. 243, 175 S.W. 372 (Ct.App.1915).\nSection 64-9-4(b), supra, is not unconstitutionally vague or uncertain.\nWe have considered defendant\u2019s other arguments and authorities and find nothing in them to compel us to conclude differently.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and WOOD, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HENDLEY, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Warren F. Reynolds, Easley & Reynolds, Hobbs, for defendant-appellant.", "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Oliver H. Miles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "461 P.2d 230\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leon AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 359.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 19, 1969.\nRehearing Denied Oct. 28, 1969.\nWarren F. Reynolds, Easley & Reynolds, Hobbs, for defendant-appellant.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Oliver H. Miles, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0748-01", "first_page_order": 804, "last_page_order": 807 }