{ "id": 5362409, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles TOOKE, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tooke", "decision_date": "1970-05-28", "docket_number": "No. 452", "first_page": "618", "last_page": "619", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "81 N.M. 618" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "471 P.2d 188" } ], "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": "312 P.2d 981", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 10481644 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/p2d/312/0981-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 A.2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 Md.App. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md. App.", "case_ids": [ 2334754 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md-app/6/0523-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N.M. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5316995 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/61/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5326683 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5361793 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.W.2d 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 2255857, 10164034 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex/158/0104-01", "/sw2d/309/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 Tex. 104", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tex.", "case_ids": [ 2255857 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/tex/158/0104-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 S.W.2d 692", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10179249 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/302/0692-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 307, "char_count": 3954, "ocr_confidence": 0.701, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8043493496738472e-07, "percentile": 0.7168719102928395 }, "sha256": "b576fa6aefe3186de851eac4465c0302cf1ce47bf6ef77b605e5a86c1960dd58", "simhash": "1:66ecbe42b8260a6b", "word_count": 645 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757301+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "OMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles TOOKE, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of attempted forgery. Sections 40A-16-9 and 40A-28-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 6). He appeals giving two grounds for reversal. We affirm.\n1. \u201cTHERE CAN BE NO CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED FORGERY IF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME IS COMPLETE.\u201d\nThe applicable portion of the' forgery statute, \u00a7 40A-16-9, supra, is subsection B, which defines forgery as \u201c *\u25a0 * * knowingly issuing or transferring a forged writing with intent to injure or defraud. * * *\u201d Defendant was convicted of an attempt to violate this subsection. His contention is that this subsection covers an attempted forgery and, therefore, our \u201cattempt\u201d statute, \u00a7 40A-28-1, supra, is not applicable. He asserts that when ' he attempted the forgery there was a violation of \u00a7 40A-16-9(B), supra, and he could not be convicted of an attempt under \u00a7 40A-28-1, supra.\nDefendant reaches his contention by equating the statutory terms \u201cissuing or transferring\u201d with \u201cpresentment, offering or issuing\u201d, hy equating the statutory terms with the common law concept of \u201cuttering\u201d and by asserting that \u201cuttering\u201d was an attempt. We do not answer defendant\u2019s contentions because they are based on language that does not appear in the statute. Our concern is with the statutory language.\nThe subsection uses the terms \u201cissuing\u201d and \u201ctransferring.\u201d Section 40A-16-9, supra. Both these terms encompass a delivery to one who is a holder with the passing of interests from one to another. See \u00a7 50A-3-102(1) (a), N.M.S.A. 1953, (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 1); Ditto Investment Company v. Ditto, 302 S.W.2d 692 (Tex.Civ.App.1957), reversed on other grounds 158 Tex. 104, 309 S.W.2d 219 (1958). It is possible _ to have a physical act which is an attempt to transfer one\u2019s interest but to have such an attempt thwarted at some stage of perpetration. See State v. Lopez, 81 N.M. 107, 464 P.2d 23 (Ct.App.1969).\nUnder the facts of this case no acts satisfying a completed crime of forgery under our statute were introduced into evidence. The evidence showed that when defendant presented a forged instrument to be cashed, he was told by a checkout clerk to have the check \u201cokayed.\u201d The \u201cokayer\u201d physically held the check while he called Safety Check to ascertain its validity. There was no transfer of rights to the \u201cokayer\u201d at this point or at any other time. While the check, physically, was transferred from defendant to the \u201cokayer\u201d this physical transfer was not a passing of any interest in the check. There was no transfer within the meaning of \u00a7 40A-16-9, supra. Defendant\u2019s attempt to pass the check never succeeded. Thus, the crime of forgery was never completed.\n2. \u201cTHIS IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT GEOGRAPHIC JURISDICTION WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO.\u201d\nThis is first raised on appeal. Being jurisdictional it is properly before us. Section 21-2-1(20) (1), N.M.S.A. 1953; State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588, 435 P.2d 207 (1967).\nPlaintiff contends the record does not \u201cestablish in what State the events described, at Boy\u2019s Super Market, took place.\u201d However, it does not follow that there was a lack of jurisdiction. New Mexico allows its courts to take judicial notice of boundaries of the state and counties therein. Trujillo v. Dimas, 61 N.M. 235, 297 P.2d 1060 (1956).\nThe evidence at trial showed that Boy\u2019s Super Market was \u2019 in Bernalillo County. This testimony would permit the trial judge or this court to take judicial notice of the fact that Bernalillo County is located in the State of New Mexico. See Boddie v. State, 6 Md.App. 523, 252 A.2d 290 (1969); Hall v. State, 312 P.2d 981 (Okl.Crim.1957).\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nOMAN and WOOD, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HENDLEY, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Wycliffe V. Butler, Butler & Colberg, Albuquerque, for appellant.", "James A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Mark B. Thompson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "471 P.2d 188\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles TOOKE, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 452.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 28, 1970.\nWycliffe V. Butler, Butler & Colberg, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nJames A. Maloney, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Mark B. Thompson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0618-01", "first_page_order": 664, "last_page_order": 665 }