{
  "id": 5334475,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe HUNT and Charles E. Taylor, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hunt",
  "decision_date": "1972-04-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 793",
  "first_page": "753",
  "last_page": "754",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.M. 753"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "497 P.2d 755"
    }
  ],
  "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": "76 N.M. 171",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500976
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0171-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5332317
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.M. 65",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1578293
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/51/0065-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5359835
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 P. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.M. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8841985
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/30/0395-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 N.M. 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1575382
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1933,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/37/0131-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 P. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1914,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.M. 474",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4703750
      ],
      "year": 1914,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/19/0474-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ariz. 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ariz.",
      "case_ids": [
        635635
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ariz/97/0296-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 4762,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.661,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.954387787273539e-07,
      "percentile": 0.849095642255591
    },
    "sha256": "2017b04ad2e69dc857ae4654733913a9d451adb1992bd70bd4ec646c9c98031a",
    "simhash": "1:bdbbcc971356ca6d",
    "word_count": 775
  },
  "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, Concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe HUNT and Charles E. Taylor, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nDefendants\u2019\u2019appeal their conviction of larceny over $100.00 but less than $2,500.-00. Section 40A-16-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol.1964, Supp.1971). Defendants assert three grounds for reversal, namely (1) \u201cself-serving\u201d is no longer a valid reason for exclusion of testimony or the testimony was admissible under the \u201cres gestae\u201d theory; (2) state witnesses were not .qualified to testify as to value; and, (3) evidence of value was insufficient.\nWe affirm.\nSELF-SERVING AND RES GESTAE.\nDefendants tendered the testimony of a witness in the following manner:\n\u201cI propose to show by this witness that the Defendant, Chuck. Taylor, while this witness was at Chuck Taylor\u2019s house approximately 9:00 o\u2019clock. October 5, 1970, that Taylor stated to this witness, the witness, Preston Long, that Bill Hunt had bought some junk and that he, \u2022 Chuck Taylor, was going to haul the junk for Bill Hunt.\u201d\nThe trial court disallowed the tender.\nDefendants contend the tender should have been allowed on the grounds that \u201cself-serving\u201d is no longer a valid reason for exclusion or even if it was excludible as \u201cself-serving\u201d it was admissible under the res gestae rule. We disagree.\nDefendants cite the case of State v. Wallace, 97 Ariz. 296, 399 P.2d 909 (1965) for the proposition that \u201cself-serving\u201d is no longer a valid reason for exclusion of testimony. Wallace is not the rule in New Mexico. State v. Klasner, 19 N.M. 474, 145 P. 679 (1914) explains the reasons for the New Mexico rule, and states the rule to- be: -\u201c *' * * declarations made by a defendant- in her own favor, unless a part of the res gestae * * * are not admissible, for. the defense. * * *\u201d See also State v. Russell, 37 N.M. 131, 19 P.2d 742 (1933); State v. Davis, 30 N.M. 395, 234 P. 311 (1925).\nDefendants assert that the statements were part of the res gestae. We disagree. \u2019 As quoted in State v. Apodaca, 80 N.M. 244, 453 P.2d 764 (Ct.App. 1969) from State v. Godwin, 51 N.M. 65, 178 P. 2d 584 (1947):\n, * * the element of spontaneity is . not to be determined by time alone. It is sufficient, for the statement to be substantially contemporaneous with the shocked condition, but not necessarily with the startling occurrence. * * *\nAlthough time alone does not determine the spontaneity, in the instant case the tendered statement took place sometime prior to the taking of the scrap metal. Further, \"we'find nothing in the testimony to show that there were statements contemporane'oiis with 'a shocked condition which were spontaneous;-which is essential to the res gestae rule. State v. Apodaca, supra.\nEXPERT TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE OF VALUE. ,..\nDefendants contend the two state witnesses were not qualified to testify as to the value of the scrap metal. We disagree.\nOne witness testified he had nine years experience in the scrap \u25a0 iron and metal business. He also testified that he was familiar with the prices in the local area and could give an opinion as to fair market value. The other witness testified he had been in the scrap metal, business for fifteen years and was familiar .with th\u00e9 reasonable market value of the scrap metal.in the local area. . . ...\nBoth witnesses had a knowledge of the fair market value of scrap metal., based upon experience-in ,the business .of buying and selling scrap metal. See State v. Williams, 83 N.M. 477, 493 P.2d 962 (Ct.App. 1972). The witnesses were qualified as experts and they gave their opinion as to fair market value. Defendants\u2019 contention that one of the witnesses was n\u00f3t' \u00edfu\u00e1lified to testify because he had not dealt-'.With a similar type of scrap metal is without Merit. The witness gave his opinion as to the value of the metal as scrap without regard to the type of metal involved. 'Further, it was the trial court\u2019s responsibility, to- determine whether the witnesses were-.-qUalified to testify as experts. There is no-showing that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony challenged -by defendants. State v. Garcia, 76 N.M. 171, 413 P.2d 210 (1966).\nDefendants further contend., the evidence of value was insufficient. . We disagree. Both witnesses testified ,a?. to. a fair market value in excess ,of $100.00. This is substantial evidence . to \u00a7upport their conviction. \u00a1\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and COWAN, Concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jerome D. Matkins, Carlsbad, for appellant Billy Joe Hunt.",
      "Donald C. Cox/ Easley & Reynolds, Hobbs, for appellant Charles E. Taylor.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James B. Mulcoclc, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "497 P.2d 755\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Billy Joe HUNT and Charles E. Taylor, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 793.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 7, 1972.\nCertiorari Denied May 15, 1972.\nJerome D. Matkins, Carlsbad, for appellant Billy Joe Hunt.\nDonald C. Cox/ Easley & Reynolds, Hobbs, for appellant Charles E. Taylor.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., James B. Mulcoclc, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0753-01",
  "first_page_order": 879,
  "last_page_order": 880
}