{
  "id": 2827719,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Will PLANT, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Plant",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 1183",
  "first_page": "2",
  "last_page": "4",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.M. 2"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "518 P.2d 961"
    }
  ],
  "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": "53 S.E.2d 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630905
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N.Y.S. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.Y.S.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 Misc. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Misc.",
      "case_ids": [
        1403602
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/misc/124/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 A.L.R. 241",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Miss. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Miss.",
      "case_ids": [
        1839557
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1931,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/miss/161/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ala.App. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ala. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1635849
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1917,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ala-app/16/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.M. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842820
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/57/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 S.W.2d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10174830
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/318/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2770362
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2764879
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0312-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 3708,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.783,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.332985817551446e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7913030836932964
    },
    "sha256": "4d35022bfb70c63fc4acfc945f117e003269d91e2e53a9cbb9977f667ba040c1",
    "simhash": "1:8c4ae391fa46c139",
    "word_count": 596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:27.328252+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Will PLANT, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThe dispositive issue is whether the written statement of Plant was properly admitted into evidence over his objection. Plant claims the statement should not have been admitted because of a prior representation to the court concerning the use of the statement.\nMary Franson was murdered during the burglary of her residence. Plant gave a written statement concerning these crimes after being promised that he would not be charged with murder if he did not \u201cactually kill\u201d Mary Franson. This promise was not kept. Plant sought to compel dismissal of the murder charge in a mandamus proceeding in the district court. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court directed dismissal of the murder charge, stating: \u201c . . . the indictment . . . for the murder of Mary Franson is inconsistent with the binding promise made ... by the Assistant District Attorney.\u201d State ex rel. Plant v. Sceresse, 84 N.M. 312, 502 P.2d 1002 (1972).\nAfter the Sceresse, supra, decision, defendant was charged with aggravated burglary. Section 40A-16 \u2014 4(C), N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6). This appeal is from Plant\u2019s conviction of that charge. At trial, the State introduced Plant\u2019s written statement as part of its case in chief. Our concern is with the use of the statement in the aggravated burglary trial.\nWe are not concerned with any unkept promise to Plant as a result of which Plant gave his statement. Our concern is with representations made to the court concerning the use of Plant\u2019s statement.\nThe Supreme Court record in Sceresse, supra, of which we take judicial notice, State v. Vigil, 85 N.M. 328, 512 P.2d 88 (Ct.App.1973), contains a requested finding by the assistant district attorney. This finding was made by the trial court as requested. It reads:\n\u201cThat the Office of the District Attorney for the Second Judicial District . has represented to the Court that it will not use the statements given by the petitioners [including Plant] against them in any trial or other judicial proceeding.\u201d\nThe first trial of Plant for aggravated burglary resulted in a mistrial because of improper activities of and statements made by courtroom spectators. At the beginning of this first trial, in a conference between the court and counsel, use of Plant\u2019s statement was discussed. In that conference, the assistant district attorney represented to the court that Plant\u2019s statement would not be used in the State\u2019s case in chief, but would only be used for impeachment of defendant. Although made at the beginning of the first aggravated burglary trial, the representation applied to the retrial on that charge. High Plains Distributor v. Texas Liquor Control Bd., 318 S.W.2d 681 (Tex.Civ.App.1958); compare Southern Union Gas Co. v. Cantrell, 57 N.M. 612, 261 P.2d 645 (1953).\nWhat is the effect of these two representations to two different trial courts concerning the use of Plant\u2019s statement? These representations have the effect of admissions binding on the State. Coster v. State, 16 Ala.App. 191, 76 So. 475 (1917); Sinclair v. State, 161 Miss. 142, 132 So. 581, 74 A.L.R. 241 (1931); People v. Cory, 124 Misc. 532, 208 N.Y.S. 768 (1925); State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E.2d 663 (1949).\nBecause of these representations by the State, Plant\u2019s statement was erroneously admitt\u00e9d.\nJudgment and sentence is reversed. The cause is remanded for a new trial.\nIt is so ordered.\nconcur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen G. Durkovich, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "518 P.2d 961\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Will PLANT, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1183.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 26, 1973.\nStephen G. Durkovich, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0002-01",
  "first_page_order": 32,
  "last_page_order": 34
}