{ "id": 5327280, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph L. GUY, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Guy", "decision_date": "1971-04-02", "docket_number": "No. 593", "first_page": "483", "last_page": "485", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 N.M. 483" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "483 P.2d 1323" } ], "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": "173 N.W.2d 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 Mich.App. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich. App.", "case_ids": [ 2077619 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich-app/20/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 P.2d 999", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "46 Cal.2d 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. 2d", "case_ids": [ 4370482 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-2d/46/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 L.Ed.2d 838", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "79 S.Ct. 886", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "359 U.S. 973", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6271876, 6271270, 6272166, 6273003, 6272782, 6272533, 6271609 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/359/0973-03", "/us/359/0973-01", "/us/359/0973-04", "/us/359/0973-07", "/us/359/0973-06", "/us/359/0973-05", "/us/359/0973-02" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ariz. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 646643 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/85/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 U.S. 337", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12054264 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/397/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 L.Ed.2d 271", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 S.Ct. 345", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "375 U.S. 940", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11778226, 11778083, 11778156 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/375/0940-03", "/us/375/0940-01", "/us/375/0940-02" ] }, { "cite": "319 F.2d 916", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 157791 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/319/0916-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.M. 762", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5322834 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/78/0762-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5370995 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 N.M. 392", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5317356 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/61/0392-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.M. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2747016 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/79/0640-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 410, "char_count": 5830, "ocr_confidence": 0.693, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5521252029883733e-07, "percentile": 0.6748022761172563 }, "sha256": "33aa037edcf46b88b236eec5b63cb4ca24ff03d670f37e97cda4aec849d353a6", "simhash": "1:a4c2b136bcf182ee", "word_count": 941 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:16:32.756560+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. Joseph L. GUY, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Judge.\nThe appeal is from defendant\u2019s conviction of \u201cescape from penitentiary.\u201d. Section 40A-22-9,. N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 6). Defendant claims the trial court erred in denying his motions for a mistrial. This claim concerns defendant\u2019s language and conduct in the courtroom.\nDuring an outburst by defendant at the beginning of his trial, he' declared \u201c * * * I\u2019m not going to stand trial, not peaceably, in this county.\u201d Defendant continued to interrupt the proceedings and the trial judge directed officers to restrain him. The jury was excused. Defendant, was handcuffed. Defendant then proceeded to insults and obscenities. He called courtroom attendants \u201cmother fucker\u201d and \u201cson of a bitches\u201d and the judge a \u201ccock punk.\u201d When the judge gave defendant an opportunity to calm down, he reiterated \u201cI\u2019m not standing trial in this Court.\u201d After a recess, the jury was returned to the courtroom and the judge directed that the handcuffs be removed. The trial proceeded.\nAt the conclusion of the direct examination of a prosecution witness, the record shows that defendant \u201c * * * has just cut his wrists with a razer [sic] blade.\u201d The trial was recessed for the day and defendant was given medical attention. The medical report is that defendant was treated for \u201csuperficial lacerations of the left forearm\u201d which were not disabling.\nOn the following morning, defendant moved for a mistrial on the grounds of what the jury \u201cwitnessed.\u201d This was denied. The witness of the preceding day was cross-examined. During the direct examination of the second witness, defendant stood up and started talking to his guards. The jury was excused. Defendant than proceeded with another outburst which resulted in defendant being placed in a straitjacket. Trial resumed. Defendant began making comments on the testimony of the second witness. The judge directed the trial to continue even though defendant was talking.\nDefendant\u2019s comments, including obscenities, were then elevated to a scream. Defendant was muffled with a towel over his mouth and restrained by officers. In a short time the screaming recommenced. One question and answer later defendant is described as \u201cmumbling.\u201d Fourteen questions and answers subsequently he is described as lying on the floor. A recess was called. Defendant is described as making horrible noises, growling and \u201clooks like he is having a spastic fit.\u201d Defendant was then attended by a physician.\nDefendant again moved for a mistrial, asserting \u201c * * * that the jury after witnessing the defendant\u2019s actions and hearing the language of the defendant it is not possible for them to reach a fair and unbiased verdict. * * * \u201d The motion was denied, the trial continued to conclusion without further untoward incident, and without further physical restraint of defendant.\nA motion for mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and its ruling on the motion will not be reversed unless there is an abuse of discretion. State v. Cochran, 79 N.M. 640, 447 P.2d 520 (1968); State v. Campos, 61 N.M. 392, 301 P.2d 329 (1956); see State v. Maes, 81 N.M. 550, 469 P.2d 529 (Ct.App.1970); State v. Verdugo, 78 N.M. 762, 438 P.2d 172 (Ct.App.1968). The record shows that the trial court, when confronted by defendant\u2019s language and conduct, proceeded carefully and calmly to insure the defendant received a fair and impartial trial, even remarking to the jury that these matters were not to have any bearing on their deliberations. There is nothing in the record showing that the trial court abused its discretion.\nIn United States v. Bentvena, 319 F.2d 916 (2nd Cir. 1963), cert. denied Ormento v. United States, 375 U.S. 940, 84 S.Ct. 345, 11 L.Ed.2d 271 (1963), the trial judge was confronted with \u201cvile language and rebellious conduct.\u201d A motion for mistrial was denied. Affirming this action, the opinion states: \u201cLaw enforcement and fair trial for those accused of violations is not to be limited to the pattern chosen by defendants. The administration of criminal justice * * * will not be delivered into the hands of those who could gain only from its subversion. * * * \u201d See Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970); State v. Van Bogart, 85 Ariz. 63, 331 P.2d 597 (1958), cert. denied 359 U.S. 973, 79 S.Ct. 886, 3 L.Ed.2d 838 (1959); People v. Merkouris, 46 Cal.2d 540, 297 P.2d 999 (1956); People v. Kerridge, 20 Mich.App. 184, 173 N.W.2d 789 (1969).\nThe \u201cvile language and rebellious conduct\u201d of United States v. Bentvena, supra, applies to all of defendant\u2019s conduct with the possible exception of what the record described as a \u201cspastic fit.\u201d Defendant characterizes this as an epileptic seizure and contends that defendant should not be held responsible for this \u201cfit.\u201d There is no medical opinion diagnosing the cause of the \u201cfit,\u201d but the record does show it was preceded by outbursts on defendant\u2019s part described as screams, that upon the onset of the \u201cfit\u201d the trial was recessed, defendant was given medical attention and that during the remainder of the trial there were no outbursts and no physical restraint of defendant.\nRegardless of the cause of the \u201cfit,\u201d the issue is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the mistrial. The fact that defendant had a \u201cfit\u201d in the courtroom does not, in itself, show an abuse of discretion in denying a mistrial, and the other circumstances affirmatively show no abuse.\nThe judgment and sentence is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nSPIESS, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "David H. Pearlman, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.", "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "483 P.2d 1323\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph L. GUY, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 593.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 2, 1971.\nDavid H. Pearlman, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Richard J. Smith, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0483-01", "first_page_order": 539, "last_page_order": 541 }