{
  "id": 5331177,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Paul BELCHER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Belcher",
  "decision_date": "1971-09-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 737",
  "first_page": "130",
  "last_page": "132",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 130"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "489 P.2d 410"
    }
  ],
  "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": "89 A.L.R. 1368",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 N.M. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1575426
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/37/0280-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 623",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5370694
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0623-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5358838
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5369693
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0185-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 N. M. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2739437
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/79/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5330664
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5342361
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0075-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 316,
    "char_count": 4076,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.673,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2080586476774557e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5952497616656415
    },
    "sha256": "744543224ccd5e924dc797edc35ce348e95a555268b96c3b3f023a6757b7be43",
    "simhash": "1:a2f6f64f78a89a66",
    "word_count": 686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and COWAN, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Paul BELCHER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nConvicted of forgery, \u00a7 40A-16-9, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6), defendant appeals. A related case is State v. Belcher, 83 N.M. 75, 488 P.2d 125 (Ct.App.), No. 668, decided August 6, 1971. The issues in this appeal concern: (1) venue and (2) admission of certain exhibits as evidence.\nV enue.\nDefendant moved for a change of venue, relying entirely on copies of four newspaper articles. The trial court ruled the articles, in themselves, were insufficient to require a change of venue. We agree. State v. Foster, 82 N.M. 573, 484 P.2d 1283 (Ct.App.1971) and cases therein cited.\nExhibits.\n(a) Money.\nPrior to trial, defendant moved to suppress a sum of money as evidence. The motion was denied. At trial, the money was admitted as evidence over defendant\u2019s objection. Defendant, claims these rulings were error.\nAn envelope was identified as containing a certain sum of money. Defendant claims error because the envelope was \u201cnever opened or examined by the jury.\u201d As to this, the trial court stated that if defendant \u201c * * * is requesting that we verify the contents of the envelope, this will be done. * * * \u201d This offer by the trial court was declined.\nDefendant claims that this money was not connected up \u201cas fruit of the crime\u201d and was not \u201ccircumstantially connected with the offense with which the defendant is charged.\u201d We agree there is no direct evidence that the money was a \u201cfruit of the crime,\u201d but that did not make the money inadmissible. See State v. Gray, 79 N. M. 424, 444 P.2d 609 (Ct.App.1968) as to reasons for admitting exhibits.\nOne reason for admitting an exhibit is to illustrate, explain or throw light on a criminal transaction. State v. Gray, supra. Plere, the money filled that rule. There is evidence that defendant cashed forged checks at two businesses, within a short period of time. At one place he purchased a pint of whiskey, paid with a forged check for $60.00 and received the change. At the second place, he purchased a carton of cigarettes, paid with a forged check for $63.00 (the basis of this prosecution) and received the change. The amount of money in defendant\u2019s possession, when arrested a short distance and in a short period of time after cashing the second check, certainly tends to throw light on the transaction. The possession of the money, considered with the time and distance factors involved, circumstantially connected defendant with the criminal offense. See State v. Santillanes, 81 N.M. 185, 464 P.2d 915 (Ct.App.1970); compare State v. Everitt, 80 N.M. 41, 450 P.2d 927 (Ct.App.1969).\n(b) Red plastic wallet.\nA red plastic wallet, identified by witnesses as belonging to defendant, was admitted into evidence. Among its contents was an identification card bearing the name of the payee named in the forged checks. The wallet was found \u201caround the corner\u201d from the business where the $63.00 fqrged check was cashed.\nDefendant asserts that the wallet should' not have been admitted because of the weakness in the proof of the chain of custody of the wallet after it was found.\nWe agree that the evidence is weak, both as to who had physical possession and as to whether the contents were in the same condition at trial as when found. However, the witness who found the wallet testified that he was satisfied \u201c[t]hat it is the same now as it was then.\u201d\n' Defendant\u2019s argument is based on the possibility of changes in the wallet and its contents., Doubt concerning the exhibit would go to the weight to be accorded the exhibit, but such doubt did not render the exhibit inadmissible. State v. Harrison, 81 N.M. 623, 471 P.2d 193 (Ct.App.1970); see State v. Johnson, 37 N.M. 280, 21 P.2d 813, 89 A.L.R. 1368 (1933).\nThe judgment and sentence is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and COWAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles A. Feezer, Carlsbad, for appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Ronald Van Amberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "489 P.2d 410\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Joe Paul BELCHER, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 737.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 17, 1971.\nCharles A. Feezer, Carlsbad, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Ronald Van Amberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0130-01",
  "first_page_order": 256,
  "last_page_order": 258
}