{
  "id": 2822429,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dan Curtis BEAL, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Beal",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 1367",
  "first_page": "335",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.M. 335"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "524 P.2d 198"
    }
  ],
  "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": "85 N.M. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2777330
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/85/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 N.M. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5336029
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/83/0600-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "390 U.S. 377",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6170914
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/390/0377-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 2699,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.361569023333022e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6364278380708682
    },
    "sha256": "e86ee067151d9a352f3ae461c9d0549ef5573117b16f99bbb5afc9931e23fb71",
    "simhash": "1:8d6df558532d932d",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "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 HERNANDEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dan Curtis BEAL, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nConvicted of armed robbery contrary to \u00a7 40A-16-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol.1972) defendant appeals. He asserts two grounds for reversal. They relate to \u201cmug shots\u201d and a refused requested instruction. We affirm.\nMug Shots\nDefendant asserts the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and admitting certain \u201cmug shots,\u201d from which the defendant was identified, into evidence. The claim is that the photographic' identification procedure was impermissibly suggestive and this procedure tainted the in-court identification.\nThe victim was robbed by two young black males. The victim testified that one of the men (defendant) was in the store the evening before the robbery. After the robbery the victim went to police headquarters and looked at more than ten \u201cmug shots.\u201d No officer was in the room during this time. No identification was made. The following day the victim was shown five \u201cmug shots.\u201d. She identified one of the robbers who is not the defendant in this case. A few days later she was shown five other \u201cmug shots.\u201d She identified the defendant. The victim testified that at no time did the police in any way say or indicate anything which would be suggestive while she viewed the \u201cmug shots.\u201d\nThe record is void of any indication that the viewing of the \u201cmug shots\u201d was in any way suggestive. Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967, 19 L.Ed.2d 1247 (1968); State v. Jones, 83 N.M. 600, 495 P.2d 380 (Ct.App.1972). Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the motion to suppress and there is no factual basis for the claim that in-court identification was tainted.\nInstruction\nDefendant\u2019s refused requested instruction read:\n\u201cThere is no evidence in the record connecting the defendant with the crime charged except the testimony of Viola M. Vickery; therefore, before you can find the defendant guilty, you must believe the statements of the said Viola M. Vickery to your satisfaction and beyond a reasonable doubt.\u201d\nInstruction should be read as a whole and where other instructions adequately cover the law refusal to give a separate instruction is not error. State v. Rushing, 85 N.M. 540, 514 P.2d 297 (1973). Here, the trial court by its instructions Nos. 13 and 17 adequately instructed the jury as to reasonable doubt and credibility of the witnesses.\nAffirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and HERNANDEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steven P. Michael, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Louis Druxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe,'for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "524 P.2d 198\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dan Curtis BEAL, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1367.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 19, 1974.\nSteven P. Michael, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Louis Druxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe,'for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0335-01",
  "first_page_order": 365,
  "last_page_order": 366
}