{
  "id": 2824936,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Fidel BACA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Baca",
  "decision_date": "1974-03-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 1359",
  "first_page": "144",
  "last_page": "145",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.M. 144"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "520 P.2d 872"
    }
  ],
  "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. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2769210
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 678",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5338801
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0678-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5338080
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 N.M. 726",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2773713
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0726-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2765960
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "5"
        },
        {
          "page": "697"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0003-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 3818,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.34128354051149e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38927501178640145
    },
    "sha256": "f730b483f1abe9ba0d260c58ced05f41874d5ffd92d0fd0829479ad84a526485",
    "simhash": "1:145cf1523ca7b0e0",
    "word_count": 610
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:27.328252+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. Joe Fidel BACA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of residential burglary in violation of \u00a7 40A-16-3, N.M. S.A.1953 (2nd Repl.Vol. 6). He appeals. We affirm.\nDefendant contends error (1) in admission of photograph in lieu of items themselves; (2) in allowing evidence of prior felony conviction of defendant; and (3) in refusal of requested instruction.\n(1) The photograph was admissible.\nDefendant was indicted for entering a dwelling house without authority or permission with intent to commit a theft therein. Unlawful entry and a description of items stolen were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The was sufficient to sustain the conviction.\nThe photograph taken by the police of the items stolen merely corroborated the testimony of the police. \u201cA relevant reason for admitting evidence is corroboration of a witness.\u201d State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5, 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972).\nDefendant contends the photograph was contrary to the best evidence rule. The best evidence rule applies to situations where a document is proved for the purpose of establishing the content of the document. Under the rule, the original of the document is required. See State v. Landlee, 85 N.M. 726, 516 P.2d 697 (Ct. App.1973), and Advisory Committee\u2019s Note to Proposed Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. Assuming a photograph comes within the best evidence rule, the rule requires the original of the photograph. Compare \u00a7\u00a7 2CM \u2014 1001 through 20-4-1004, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, Supp.1973). No claim is made that the photograph in this case was not the original. The best evidence rule did not bar admission of the photograph.\n(2) Prior felony conviction of defendant was admissible.\nThe defendant contends that the admissibility of evidence of a prior conviction was prejudicial. Rule 609(a) through (c) of the New Mexico Rules of Evidence [\u00a7 20-4-609(a), (b), (c), N.M.S. A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1973 Supp.)] provides for the admissibility of a prior conviction to attack the credibility of a witness if the crime was punishable by imprisonment in excess of one year, and if the conviction has not been the subject of a pardon, annulment or- certificate or rehabilitation.\nDefendant admitted he was convicted of burglary for which he served five years and was paroled in 1970 or 1971. Section 20-4-609 (b), supra.\nThe prior conviction was admissible within the confines of the trial court\u2019s discretion. Section 20- -4-403, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, Supp.1973). Compare State v. Garcia, 83 N.M. 262, 490 P.2d 1235 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Sibold, 83 N.M. 678, 496 P.2d 738 (Ct.App.1972). We find no abuse of discretion.\n(3) Refusal of defendant\u2019s requested instruction was not erroneous.\nDefendant requested the trial court to instruct the jury that \u201cMere presence at the scene of a burglary, when not coupled with other culpatory or incriminating circumstances, does not alone suffice to justify a verdict of guilty.\u201d\nThe record shows defendant was not only seen at the door of the residence in question, but that the door and door knob were bent and pried open and defendant was seen carrying, items out of the residence. Defendant\u2019s presence at the scene was coupled with sufficient evidence to justify the verdict of guilt. The evidence does not support the above instruction.\nThe refusal to give the instruction was not erroneous. State v. Rodriguez, 84 N. M. 60, 499 P.2d 378 (Ct.App.1972).\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and HENDLEY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert H. McBride, Casados, McBride & Robinson, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "520 P.2d 872\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Fidel BACA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1359.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMarch 13, 1974.\nRobert H. McBride, Casados, McBride & Robinson, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jay F. Rosenthal, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0144-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 175
}