{
  "id": 2825455,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sanchez",
  "decision_date": "1974-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 1284",
  "first_page": "713",
  "last_page": "715",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.M. 713"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "526 P.2d 1306"
    }
  ],
  "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. 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2765269
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0402-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 39",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2824335
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0039-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3018,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1419797534704829e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5786269778662771
    },
    "sha256": "e2807602a1603149d22f8e467ed1f095bc02d1692d92b3ce9e1e16bb8659770e",
    "simhash": "1:b1d8dd74b46585b3",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:27.328252+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant appeals his conviction of an attempt to commit armed robbery. Section 40A-28-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6) and \u00a7 40A-16-2, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6, Supp.1973). He complains of remarks made by the prosecutor in the prosecution\u2019s final argument to the jury. We discuss two issues: (1) whether the issue was raised in the trial court, and (2) whether the plain error rule applies to the remarks.\nWhether Issue Raised in the Trial Court\nDuring final argument, the prosecutor stated: \u201cThe defense attorney brought up the constitutional rights of Mr. Sanchez. I ask you, did Mr. Sanchez have any regard for the constitutional rights of Mr. Gallegos on that morning when he stuck those knives in his throat ? What about the constitutional rights \u2014 \u201d At this point the argument was interrupted* and a conference was held at the bench. Defendant\u2019s objection to the above remarks was sustained. The prosecutor then concluded his argument by asking the jury to return a verdict consistent with the evidence.\nDefendant claims the reference to \u201cconstitutional rights\u201d was prejudicial and influenced the jury by injecting a false issue into the case. We do not consider the merits of this contention. The objection, which was sustained, was that the prosecutor, in his final argument, not be \u201callowed to go into anything that' I did not go into.\u201d See \u00a7 41-23-40(n), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6, Supp.1973). The contention now made was never raised in the trial court. It will not be considered for the first time on appeal. Section 21-12-11, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Int.Supp.1974); compare State v. Vallejos, 86 N.M. 39, 519 P.2d 135 (Ct. App.1974).\nWhether the Plain Error Rule Applies\nDefendant asserts the allegedly improper comment of the prosecutor can be raised for the first time on appeal on the basis that the comment was plain error. Cases cited in support of this contention are federal cases. New Mexico has not adopted the federal plain error rule. State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 402, 503 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App.1972). Subsequent to the Lopez decision, the New Mexico Supreme Court adopted Rules of Evidence. The Rules of Evidence are not applicable in this case. Even if the Rules did apply, they do not aid defendant. The Rules of Evidence refer to \u201cplain errors affecting substantial rights.\u201d That reference is part of a rule concerned with evidentiary rulings. Section 20-4-103, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, Supp.1973). No evidentiary ruling is involved in defendant\u2019s contention. New Mexico has no plain error rule applicable to defendant\u2019s claim; the claim will not be reviewed.\nThe judgment and sentence is affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and HERNANDEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert H. Borkenhagen, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jane E. Pendleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "526 P.2d 1306\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tommy SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1284.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 18, 1974.\nRobert H. Borkenhagen, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Jane E. Pendleton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0713-01",
  "first_page_order": 743,
  "last_page_order": 745
}