{ "id": 2776608, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Fuentes", "decision_date": "1973-04-27", "docket_number": "No. 1064", "first_page": "274", "last_page": "277", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "85 N.M. 274" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "511 P.2d 760" } ], "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. 757", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2771759 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0757-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 L.Ed.2d 279", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "90 S.Ct. 1860", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "398 U.S. 942", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6228101, 6225702, 6226248, 6227818, 6227184, 6228722, 6229053, 6226835, 6225976, 6228410, 6226525, 6227519 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/398/0942-09", "/us/398/0942-01", "/us/398/0942-03", "/us/398/0942-08", "/us/398/0942-06", "/us/398/0942-11", "/us/398/0942-12", "/us/398/0942-05", "/us/398/0942-02", "/us/398/0942-10", "/us/398/0942-04", "/us/398/0942-07" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5364417 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.M. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2775092 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/85/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 N.M. 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2747125 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/79/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 432", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5336073 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0432-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 N.M. 280", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2855665 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/72/0280-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 750", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5332872 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0750-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5363579 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2765791 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5335786 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5331518 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2767407 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 748", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5355345 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0748-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2766275 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2768063 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0453-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 P. 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "26 N.M. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8842577 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/26/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 N.M. 274", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5363157 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/81/0274-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2767351 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0166-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5334590 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 755", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5325954 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0755-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5335786 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2767407 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0397-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.M. 748", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5355345 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/80/0748-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2766275 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 453", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2768063 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0453-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 485, "char_count": 8836, "ocr_confidence": 0.75, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.008166211253486e-07, "percentile": 0.8530026267940718 }, "sha256": "7caa7f3f167c73e70d8ca7b383272fc55ae6a72b38c113ae4df1b59b66b978ed", "simhash": "1:a1d009dbb56575aa", "word_count": 1465 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HERNANDEZ, J., concurs.", "SUTIN, J., concurred in part and dissented in part." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nConvicted of the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance in violation of \u00a7 54 \u2014 11-22 (A), N.M.S.A.1953 (Int.Supp. 1972) defendant appeals asserting that \u201ccriminal intent\u201d is an essential element of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, and that the instructions to the jury failed to include a proper instruction on criminal intent. We affirm.\nPrior to submission of this case, the Supreme Court on January 3, 1973 granted certiorari in State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 453, 504 P.2d 1086 (Ct.App.1972) (Lopez 1) and State v. Gunzelman, 84 N.M. 451, 504 P.2d 1084 (Ct.App.1972). The instant case was submitted on February 5, 1973. Subsequently, we certified this case to the Supreme Court on March 21, 1973 because this case involved instructions concerning the same requisite intent as contained in Lopez and Gunzelman and a determination of those cases would necessarily dispose of this one. Our certification was pursuant to \u00a7 16-7-14(C) (2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 1970) and stated in part:\n\u201cThe New Mexico Supreme Court has granted certiorari in State v. Lopez, (Ct.App.), No. 976, decided November 17, 1972, and State v. Gunzelman, (Ct.App.), No. 968, decided November 30, 1972. The Lopez and Gunzelman decisions are both concerned with instructions to the jury concerning the requisite intent for the crimes involved in those cases.\n\u201cBy the grant of certiorari, it appears to this Court that the New Mexico Supreme Court has indicated that the matter of instructions concerning the requisite intent is one of substantial public interest that should be decided by that Court.\n\u201cCertiorari was granted in the Lopez and Gunzelman cases on January 3, 1973, and those cases are presently pending before that Court.\n\u201cOn the basis of the foregoing and pursuant to \u00a7 16-7-14(C) (2), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4), this case is certified to the New Mexico Supreme Court for decision.\u201d\nSection 16 \u2014 7\u201414(C) (2), supra, states in part:\n\u201cAny certification by the court of appeals under this subsection is a final determination of appellate jurisdiction.\u201d\nSubsequently on March 30, 1973, by order, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals stating in part:\n\u201c. . . it appearing to the Supreme Court that this cause should be remanded back to the Court of Appeals;\u201d\nAccordingly, we decide the issue presented and in so doing overrule our decision in Gunzelman. In overruling our holding in Gunzelman we do not overrule our decision in State v. Austin, 80 N.M. 748, 461 P.2d 230 (Ct.App.1969) and some of its progeny. State v. Bachicha, 84 N.M. 397, 503 P.2d 1175 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Lopez, (Lopez 1), supra; State v. Pedro, 83 N.M. 212, 490 P.2d 470 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Sanchez, 82 N.M. 585, 484 P.2d 1295 (Ct.App.1971). See also State v. Viscarra, 84 N.M. 217, 501 P.2d 261 (Ct.App.1972). A brief summary will be helpful to explain our reasoning.\nAustin was concerned with the constitutionality of \u00a7 64-9-4(a), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 1960, pt. 2), the unlawful taking of a vehicle. Defendant argued the constitutionality of the statute on the grounds that it did not \u201crequire the finding of any criminal intent\u201d and could apply to an innocent convertor. We held the issue to be jurisdictional and that it could be raised for the first time on appeal. We further held that the legislature may forbid the doing of an act and make its commission criminal without regard to the intent with which the act is done. In the absence of a clear indication that the legislature intended to create a crime which did not require criminal intent we held that the statute would be construed in light of the common law and the existence of criminal intent would be regarded as essential. In the context of the challenged statute we defined criminal intent as a conscious wrongdoing. The jury in that case having been instructed that the taking had to be done knowingly and feloniously, we held that the defendant was properly found guilty of a conscious wrongdoing in taking the vehicle and accordingly the statute was not unconstitutionally vague or uncertain.\nAs is apparent from a reading of both opinions in Gunzelman, the trial court not only instructed in the terms of the burglary statute (\u00a7 40A-16-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 1972) . . unauthorized entry . . ., with the intent to commit any felony or theft therein.\u201d) but also gave an instruction on general criminal intent. Defendant made no objection nor did he request an instruction. We held the \u201cfailure to give an instruction containing an essential element of a crime is jurisdictional and may be raised for the first time on appeal.\u201d\nOur holding in Gunzelman was in error. The matter should have been disposed of on procedural grounds since defendant did not object to the confusing instructions. Gunzelman did not involve an instruction which omitted an essential element of the crime defined in the statute. State v. Walsh, 81 N.M. 65, 463 P.2d 41 (Ct.App.1969). Thus there was no jurisdictional defect. State v. Moraga, 82 N.M. 750, 487 P.2d 178 (Ct.App.1971). Since the defendant did not object to the instruction on general intent and had failed to show prejudice amounting to fundamental error the issue decided in Gunzelman should not have been subject to review. State v. Hatley, 72 N.M. 280, 383 P.2d 247 (1963); State v. Herrera, 82 N.M. 432, 483 P.2d 313 (Ct.App.1971). Any alleged error was waived. State v. Lopez, 79 N.M. 282, 442 P.2d 594 (1968).\nIn this posture we decide the instant case. Section 54 \u2014 11-22(A), supra, states in part:\n\u201c. . ., it is unlawful for any person to intentionally distribute ... a controlled substance. . . .\u201d\nThe trial court instructed the jury in the language of the statute. Defendant\u2019s trial counsel made no objection nor did he tender an instruction. In this case an objection would have done no good because instructions which are phrased in the terms of a statute which require an intent are sufficient. State v. Baca (Ct.App.), 85 N.M. 55, 508 P.2d 1352, decided April 1, 1973; State v. Lopez, 80 N.M. 599, 458 P.2d 851 (Ct.App.1969), cert. denied, 398 U.S. 942, 90 S.Ct. 1860, 26 L.Ed.2d 279 (1970). Except where the legislature clearly indicates a. desire to eliminate the requirement of criminal intent, criminal statutes will be construed in the light of the common law and criminal intent will be required. Failure to instruct on this required element will be considered jurisdictional. State v. Austin, supra; State v. Lopez, (Lopez 1), supra; State v. Bachicha, supra; State v. Sanchez, supra.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHERNANDEZ, J., concurs.\nSUTIN, J., concurred in part and dissented in part.", "type": "majority", "author": "HENDLEY, Judge." }, { "text": "SUTIN, Judge\n(concurring in part and dissenting in part).\nI concur in the result reached. I dissent on the failure to overrule State v. Austin, 80 N.M. 748, 461 P.2d 230 (Ct.App.1969) and its progeny. See dissent in the following opinions: State v. Sanchez, 82 N.M. 585, 484 P.2d 1295 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Sluder, 82 N.M. 755, 487 P.2d 183 (Ct. App.1971); State v. Lee, 83 N.M. 522, 494 P.2d 184 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Bachicha, 84 N.M. 397, 503 P.2d 1175 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Gunzelman, 84 N.M. 451, 504 P.2d 1084 (1972); State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 453, 504 P.2d 1086 (Ct.App.1972), and special concurrence in State v. Ramirez, 84 N.M. 166, 500 P.2d 451 (Ct.App.1972).\nIn my opinion, the confusion which surrounds instructions in criminal cases on \u201ccriminal intent\u201d still exists. The failure to instruct on the meaning of \u201ccriminal intent\u201d should not be considered jurisdictional in any case where the jury is instructed in the language of the criminal statute. To do so opens the door to reversal. For one example, \u201cspecific intent\u201d is not an essential element of second degree murder. State v. Tapia, 81 N.M. 274, 466 P.2d 551 (1970). It is essential in first degree murder. State v. Smith, 26 N.M. 482, 194 P. 869 (1921). As long as this rule exists, a defendant will never tender an instruction on \u201ccriminal intent.\u201d If by oversight, the court fails to give one, a reversal follows.\n\u201cCriminal intent\u201d should be a matter of argument to the jury based upon the evidence and the statute. No reasonable contention can be made that the language used in an instruction to define \u201ccriminal intent\u201d has any bearing on a defendant\u2019s constitutional rights.\nThis problem may be solved if and when the Supreme Court adopts uniform jury instructions in criminal cases.", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "SUTIN, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Brian W. Copple, Roswell, for defendant-appellant.", "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Harvey B. Fruman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "511 P.2d 760\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Domingo FUENTES, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1064.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 27, 1973.\nRehearing Denied May 21, 1973.\nCertiorari Denied June 15, 1973.\nSee also 84 N.M. 757, 508 P.2d 27.\nBrian W. Copple, Roswell, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Harvey B. Fruman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0274-01", "first_page_order": 336, "last_page_order": 339 }