{
  "id": 5331518,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dan PEDRO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pedro",
  "decision_date": "1971-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 660",
  "first_page": "212",
  "last_page": "213",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 212"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "490 P.2d 470"
    }
  ],
  "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": "59 N.M. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1589310
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/59/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "83 N.M. 208",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5337230
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "213"
        },
        {
          "page": "471"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0208-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.M. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2716763
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/67/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5357582
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0347-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5355345
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 2997,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.671,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7322572778757024e-07,
      "percentile": 0.705698285884621
    },
    "sha256": "76e1ec66093fc9c90119fa2372efb23632920e3bc89b743ceff8f7f9d24d94da",
    "simhash": "1:407bf8409aef252c",
    "word_count": 476
  },
  "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. Robert Dan PEDRO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nConvicted of violating \u00a7 54-5-16, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2), defendant appeals. The portion of \u00a7 54-5-16, supra, involved in this appeal makes it unlawful \u201c * * * to possess, * * * anhalonium, commonly known as peyote or pellote; * * * \u201d We need consider only one of the issues raised by defendant; that issue, which is dispositive, is whether the statute requires that possession of anhalonium be intentional.\nSection 54-5-16, supra, does not state that the possession must have been intentional. In this situation, judicial construction of the statute is required. State v. Shedoudy, 45 N.M. 516, 118 P.2d 280 (1941). \u201cIntent\u201d is required unless it clearly appears that the Legislature meant to eliminate \u201cintent\u201d as part of the offense. State v. Austin, 80 N.M. 748, 461 P.2d 230 (Ct.App.1969); State v. Davis, 80 N.M. 347, 455 P.2d 851 (Ct.App.1969). It does not clearly appear from th\u00e9 statut\u00e9 that the Legislature intended to make unintentional possession of anhalonium a crime. Accordingly, an intent to possess the anhalonium is required. The same result has been reached in other cases where the statute which prohibited possession did not refer to \u201cintent.\u201d As to narcotic drugs, see State v. Giddings, 67 N.M. 87, 352 P.2d 1003 (1960), State v. Mosier and Mordecai, (Ct.App.), 83 N.M. 208, 213, 490 P.2d 466, 471, State v. Maes, 81 N.M. 550, 469 P.2d 529 (Ct.App.1970); as to mercury, see State v. Davis, supra; as to burglary tools, compare State v. Lawson, 59 N.M. 482, 286 P. 2d 1076 (1955).\nIn this case, the trial court ruled that \u201cintent\u201d was not an element of the offense of possession of anhalonium. Being of this view, which was erroneous; the trial court did not determine whether there was an intentional possession. We do not remand the case for such a determination because there is no evidence of intentional possession. Neither evidence nor inference in the State\u2019s case shows defendant intentionally possessed anhalonium. The defense evidence is to the effect that defendant, an Arapahoe Indian, was treated for an illness by White Oak, an Arapahoe \u201cIndian Doctorthat after the treatment, defendant was given \u201cmedicine\u201d to carry on his person as a \u201cprotection;\u201d that defendant did not know the composition of this medicine. This medicine is the substance on which the prosecution is based.\nThere being no evidence of intentional possession, the conviction is reversed. The cause is remanded with instructions to set aside the judgment and sentence and to .dismiss the charge against defendant.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and COWAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scott McCarty, Albuquerque, David H. Getches, Richard B. Collins, Jr., Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Leila Andrews, Asst. Atty, Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "490 P.2d 470\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Dan PEDRO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 660.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nOct. 15, 1971.\nScott McCarty, Albuquerque, David H. Getches, Richard B. Collins, Jr., Native American Rights Fund, Boulder, Colo., for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Leila Andrews, Asst. Atty, Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0212-01",
  "first_page_order": 338,
  "last_page_order": 339
}