{
  "id": 5336300,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Montano",
  "decision_date": "1972-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 761",
  "first_page": "523",
  "last_page": "524",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 523"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "494 P.2d 185"
    }
  ],
  "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": "81 N.M. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5366447
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841627
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5339651
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0113-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5338982
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0263-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3088,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.657,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89847988284142e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30686808381492514
    },
    "sha256": "896bc5b21f3781545d31640cae0853ecd9fc78899d6028379ce8053936dcf65f",
    "simhash": "1:e7e59d9f5aa72be2",
    "word_count": 493
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:20.437308+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and COWAN, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nConvicted of burglary defendant appeals. We reverse on defendant\u2019s third point regarding an insanity instruction.\nDuring the course of the trial a psychiatrist testified that defendant \u201c * * * gave a history of being mentally ill. * * I would have considered him [defendant] rnentally ill then [at the time of the criminal act]\u201d and defendant \u201c * * * would riot have been abl\u00e9 to distinguish right from wrong. * * * \u201d\n. :The defendant\u2019s tendered but refused insanity instruction stated in part:\n\u25a0\u201cInsanity, as the word is used in these Instructions, means such a diseased or deranged condition of the mental faculties of a person as to render that person incapable of knowing the nature and quality of his act, or of distinguishing between right and wrong in relation to the act with which he is charged, or of\u2019 such character as to deprive one of the powers of his will which would enable him to prevent himself from committing the act even though he might know the nature and quality of the act and that it is \"wrong.\u201d >\u25a0.,\u25a0\u2022\u2022\nThe trial court instructed the jury on the insanity issue as follows:\n\u201cYou must find the defendant, Ernest Montano, not guilty if you find that his act of entering the structure was the product of insanity.\n\u201cYou are instructed that insanity means a true disease of the mind, normally extending over a considerable period of time, as distinguished from a sort of momentary insanity arising from the pressure of circumstances.\u201d\nThe State does not argue that the trial court\u2019s instruction was correct nor does it argue that the defendant\u2019s requested instruction was erroneous. See State v. James, 83 N.M. 263, 490 P.2d 1236 (Ct.App.1971) and cases cited therein for discussion of insanity. The State argues that State v. Flowers, 83 N.M. 113, 489 P.2d 178 (1971) and State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 257 P.2d 915 (1953) apply. The State asserts that since defendant did not point out the error in the court\u2019s instruction which purportedly defined insanity, defendant cannot now complain even though he did submit a correct instruction. Compton and Flozvers are not applicable.\nHere, the court\u2019s instruction failed to cover the elements of insanity. State v. James, supra. Defendant\u2019s requested instruction contained those elements. By the submission of a proper instruction the defendant alerted the trial court to the omission in its instruction. See State v. Rodriguez, 81 N.M. 503, 469 P.2d 148 (1970). The matter was preserved for review. Section 21-1-1 (51) (2) (h), N. M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1970).\nThe trial court\u2019s failure to instruct on the elements of insanity being erroneous, the case is reversed with directions to grant defendant a new trial.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and COWAN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wycliffe V. Butler, Butler & Colberg, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "' David L. Nbrvell, Atty. Gen., Winston Roberts-Hohl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sante Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "494 P.2d 185\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ernest MONTANO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 761.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nFeb. 4, 1972.\nWycliffe V. Butler, Butler & Colberg, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\n' David L. Nbrvell, Atty. Gen., Winston Roberts-Hohl, Asst. Atty. Gen., Sante Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0523-01",
  "first_page_order": 649,
  "last_page_order": 650
}