{ "id": 2769946, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Shipman NATION, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Nation", "decision_date": "1973-06-13", "docket_number": "No. 1107", "first_page": "291", "last_page": "293", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "85 N.M. 291" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "511 P.2d 777" } ], "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. 38", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2772521 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0038-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 N.M. 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5334220 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/82/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5338929, 5336082 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0397-01", "/nm/83/0397-02" ] }, { "cite": "85 Idaho 51", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Idaho", "case_ids": [ 2359002 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/idaho/85/0051-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N.M. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8504074 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/76/0636-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 330, "char_count": 5163, "ocr_confidence": 0.746, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.637758427841288e-08, "percentile": 0.3520857779739282 }, "sha256": "c8c65a31b67fc0376896c3c573947aa7ee5474d2bfb5e3db1b17740a3ceb3625", "simhash": "1:2c1699c99c085b6d", "word_count": 834 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Shipman NATION, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nConvicted of forgery and of unlawful possession of a depressant, stimulant or hallucinogenic drug, defendant appeals. The issues submitted for decision are: (1) sufficiency of the evidence of knowledge and intent on the forgery charge and (2) sufficiency of the evidence of knowledge on the drug charge. A third point, concerning denial of a motion for a new trial, was abandoned at oral argument.\nForgery knowledge and intent.\nUnder \u00a7 40A-16-9(B), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6), forgery consists of \u201cknowingly issuing or transferring a forged writing with intent to injure or defraud.\u201d\nThere is evidence that a physician\u2019s signature had been forged on one of his prescription blanks, that defendant presented this forged prescription to a pharmacist and obtained the drug identified in the prescription. Defendant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to show she knowingly transferred a forged prescription and insufficient to show she transferred the forged prescription with an intent to injure or defraud. We disagree.\nThe forged prescription is dated November 22, 1971. The prescription was presented'to the pharmacist on December 11, 1971. The prescription blank was that of a San Juan County physician. The pharmacist was in Lea County. The pharmacist queried defendant about the delay in filling the prescription. According to the pharmacist, defendant stated: \u201c\u2018. . . my doctor gave this to me, because I was going to be out of town. I was going on a trip. He gave me this in case I ran out and needed to get it filled while I was gone. . . .\u2019\u201d The physician testified that he had given defendant a prescription for the same drug or\u00ed November 20, 1971, and that the supply from this valid prescription would have lasted until the first of the year. The physician did not prescribe the drug on November 22, 1971, the date of the forged prescription.\nThe evidence that the prescription of November 22, 1971, was forged; that defendant told the pharmacist this prescription had been given to her by her physician ; evidence that the physician had not prescribed the drug on November 22, 1971; and that defendant had a supply of the drug from the prescription of November 20, 1971, is substantial evidence that defendant knowingly transferred a forged writing.\nFor there to be an \u201cintent to defraud,\u201d an injury or loss need not have actually resulted. State v. Weber, 76 N.M. 636, 417 P.2d 444 (1966). For such an intent \u201c. . . it is immaterial that no one was in fact deceived, or that the defendant did not intend to or did not make any financial gain. ...\u201d 2 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Law and Procedure \u00a7 623 (1957). \u201c. . . It is sufficient if the intent was to defraud . . . any person on whom the counterfeit is passed. . . . \u201d 2 Wharton, supra, \u00a7 623.\nIn this case, there is evidence that defendant passed the forged prescription as one that was genuine and received the drug; that the name on the forged prescription was that of \u201cMary Hall;\u201d that defendant gave the pharmacist an address for Mary Hall. This is substantial evidence of an intent to defraud. See State v. Booton, 85 Idaho 51, 375 P.2d 536 (1962); compare State v. Gregg, 83 N.M. 397, 492 P.2d 1260 (Ct.App.1972). Specifically, defendant\u2019s intent to defraud could be inferred from the foregoing acts and conduct of the defendant. See State v. Andrada, 82 N.M. 543, 484 P.2d 763 (Ct.App.1971).\nAdmittedly, there is conflicting evidence. Our review, however, is in the light most favorable to sustain the conviction. State v. Gregg, supra. Where, as here, the evidence on the question of intent is conflicting, and determination of \u201cintent\u201d depended on the credibility of the witnesses, the matter was to be resolved by the jury. Maxey v. Quintana, 84 N.M. 38, 499 P.2d 356 (Ct.App.1972).\nKnowledge under the drug charge.\nSection 54-6-38(B) (3), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2, Supp.1971) provides in part: \u201cNo person . . . shall possess any depressant, stimulant, or hallucinogenic drug unless such drug was obtained upon a valid prescription, and held in the original container in which such drug was delivered. ...\u201d Section 54-6-51, N.M.S. A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2, Supp.1971) provides a penalty for a person who \u201cknowingly violates\u201d \u00a7 54-6-38(B) (3), supra.\nDefendant contends that the State \u201c. . . failed to prove knowledge on the part of the defendant that the prescription was forged . . .\u201d and, thus, has failed to prove that defendant knowingly violated \u00a7 54 \u2014 6-38(B) (3), supra. The answer is that there is substantial evidence that defendant knowingly transferred a forged prescription and this evidence is also substantial evidence of knowingly possessing the drug here involved, Eskatrol, by obtaining the drug without a valid prescription.\nThe judgment and sentence is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "James M. Maddox, Hobbs, for appellant.", "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Kegel & McCulloh, Santa Fe, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "511 P.2d 777\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dorothy Shipman NATION, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1107.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 13, 1973.\nJames M. Maddox, Hobbs, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Kegel & McCulloh, Santa Fe, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0291-01", "first_page_order": 353, "last_page_order": 355 }