{
  "id": 2765791,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvadore VISCARRA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Viscarra",
  "decision_date": "1972-09-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 906",
  "first_page": "217",
  "last_page": "218",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 N.M. 217"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "501 P.2d 261"
    }
  ],
  "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": "84 N.M. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2767351
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0166-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "56 N.M. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1584729
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/56/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 P. 604",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.M. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        208842
      ],
      "year": 1912,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/17/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 674",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5366107
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0674-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "498 P.2d 1372",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2769789
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5338277
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0029-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 305,
    "char_count": 3927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.699,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.685371297493975e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49240032913115783
    },
    "sha256": "317fc1dab9d03ca213dcaa7d4f4ebb689c36e0d54bf32889ce11fd31c1a93330",
    "simhash": "1:89c64107d10590a4",
    "word_count": 636
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:55.751115+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvadore VISCARRA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted and sentenced for receiving stolen property in excess of $100.00, but less than $2500.00, in violation of \u00a7 40A-16-11, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1971). Defendant appeals.\nWe affirm.\nDefendant contends, (1) he was entitled to a directed verdict; (2) the trial court failed to instruct on specific intent.\n(1) Defendant was not Entitled to a Directed Verdict.\nWhen the state rested, defendant moved for a directed verdict because of the state\u2019s failure to sustain its burden of proof of the essential elements of the crime. The motion was denied and defendant rested.\nSection 40A-16-11, supra, provides in part:\nReceiving stolen property consists of buying, procuring, receiving or concealing anything of value, knowing or having reason to believe the same to have been stolen .\nThe record shows that the evening of November 29, 1971, the J. C. Penney store in Alamogordo was burglarized. Shortly after midnight, the police stopped a pickup truck, in which defendant was an occupant, because the vehicle\u2019s tail lights were not working. Numerous identified articles stolen from J. C. Penney were piled in the back of the truck. A witness testified that defendant and the driver of the pickup carried things from the home of a brother of the driver and placed those things in the pickup. It was shortly thereafter that the pickup was stopped by the police. During a conversation between the police officer and the driver of the pickup, the driver said the clothing had been found on a canyon road. The defendant nodded his head in agreement. The false explanation concurred in by defendant is a circumstance indicative of guilt. State v. Johnson, 83 N.M. 29, 498 P.2d 1372 (Ct.App.1972).\nThe evidence is clear that property had been stolen. From the foregoing facts, the jury could conclude that defendant concealed this stolen property with knowledge it was stolen, and did so with a general criminal intent. State v. Zarafonetis, 81 N.M. 674, 472 P.2d 388 (Ct.App.1970).\nDefendant relies on Territory v. Graves, 17 N.M. 241, 125 P. 604 (1912), which states that \u201cdishonest intent\u201d is an additional element of this offense. It is not an element of the statutory crime defined in \u00a7 40A-16-11, supra, and we decline to hold that \u201cdishonest intent\u201d is an additional element.\nDefendant was not entitled to a directed verdict.\n(2) There was no Error in Refusing Defendant\u2019s Tendered Instruction on Specific Intent.\nThe trial court instructed the jury that one of the material allegations which must be proved to their satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt was:\n(d) That in the concealing of such property he had a wrongful intent with respect thereto.\n\u201cWrongful intent\u201d means wicked or felonious intent. See Brown v. Village of Deming, 56 N.M. 302, 243 P.2d 609 (1952); 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law \u00a7 1(e). We believe it falls within the category of general criminal intent and not specific intent. Criminal intent is a mental state, a conscious wrongdoing. State v. Austin, 80 N.M. 748, 461 P.2d 230 (Ct.App.1969).\nSection 40A-16-11, supra, does not contain such words as \u201cwith intent.\u201d Specific intent is not an essential element of the crime defined. State v. Ramirez, 84 N.M. 166, 500 P.2d 451 (Ct.App.) decided July 28, 1972.\nDefendant\u2019s requested instruction characterized the crime as an act which \u201cmust be accompanied by a specific or particular intent without which such a crime may not be committed.\u201d The trial court did not err in refusing this instruction.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas A. Sandenaw, Jr., Shipley, Durrett, Conway & Sandenaw, Alamogordo, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "501 P.2d 261\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Salvadore VISCARRA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 906.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 8, 1972.\nThomas A. Sandenaw, Jr., Shipley, Durrett, Conway & Sandenaw, Alamogordo, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0217-01",
  "first_page_order": 373,
  "last_page_order": 374
}