{
  "id": 2830903,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete APODACA, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Apodaca",
  "decision_date": "1975-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 1635",
  "first_page": "423",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 423"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "535 P.2d 66"
    }
  ],
  "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": "86 N.M. 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2825584
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0190-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 294,
    "char_count": 4868,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.750688746718438
    },
    "sha256": "b15f96538fb96e50ffd4b82c4f16c3100f51144d3eb4ba770b36ca6e06f55513",
    "simhash": "1:1b8194b93fc54528",
    "word_count": 767
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LOPEZ,J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete APODACA, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted in district court, upon an appeal from magistrate\u2019s court, of four separate criminal offenses: (1) running a red light, (2) open liquor in motor vehicle, (3) driving with a revoked driver\u2019s license, and (4) driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. We reverse.\nThe complaint filed in the magistrate\u2019s court states under CRIME: \u201cred light violation/open liquor in motor vehicle./license revoked/no driver\u2019s license/driving while intoxicated contrary to Sections 64\u2014 22-2/71-26-D/64-13-68/64-16-5 N.M.S.A., 1953 Compilation.\u201d\nUnder Statement of Facts, the complaint states:\nRan Red light erratic Driving\nDrinking\nIt is difficult to read the last three words in the Statement of Facts. The defendant and the State read the words as \u201cerratic driving drinking.\u201d We accept this reading.\nIn the magistrate\u2019s court, \u00a7 36-21-21 (a), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6) provides the contents of a criminal complaint. It reads:\nA criminal action is commenced by filing ... a complaint containing the facts, common name of the offense charged and, where applicable, a specific section number which contains the offense. [Emphasis added]\nThe three elements named in the emphasized portion of the statute are mandatory. If any one of them is omitted from the criminal complaint, it does not state a criminal charge. State v. Raley, 86 N.M. 190, 521 P.2d 1031 (Ct.App.1974). We shall take each crime charged separately.\n(a) \u201cOpen liquor in motor vehicle\u201d contrary to \u00a7 \u201c71-26-D\u201d. The State concedes that the conviction for this offense is reversible because the section number is unknown to New Mexico statutes and no facts are alleged to support the charge. We agree.\n(b) \u201cDriving while intoxicated\u201d contrary to \u00a7 64-22-2 [N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2)]. This complaint is insufficient because it does not state the \u201cspecific section number . . . which contains the offense.\u201d Had the complaint referred to subsection (A) of \u00a7 64-22-2, supra, the specific section number requirement would have been met. Neither does it state any facts to support the charge. State v. Raley, supra.\n(c) \u201cLicense revoked\u201d and \u201cno driver\u2019s license\u201d contrary to \u00a7 64-13-68 [N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2)]. No facts are alleged to support this charge.\n(d) \u201cRed light violation\u201d contrary to \u00a7 64-16-5 [N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2)]. Again, the \u201cspecific section number . . . which contains the offense\u201d was not stated, nor were sufficient facts set forth to support the charge.\nSection 64-16-5 contains six separate legends of traffic control signals, in four separate legends of which are subsections applicable to pedestrians.\nSubsection C(l] applies to the red signal alone. Under this subsection, the operator of a motor vehicle may turn right at a red light if he first stops and yields the right of way to all pedestrians and vehicles lawfully in or approaching the intersection. This provision permits the operator to \u201crun a red light\u201d under safety conditions.\nSubsection D(l) applies to a red signal with a green arrow. The operator of a motor vehicle can \u201crun a red light\u201d if the signal light also contains a green arrow.\nUse only of the words \u201cran red light\u201d in the Statement of Facts, plus the absence of the specific section number allegedly violated, failed to meet the requirements for the complaint. State v. Raley, supra.\nThe judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with a direction to dismiss the complaint.\nIt is so ordered.\nLOPEZ,J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      },
      {
        "text": "HERNANDEZ, Judge\n(concurring in part, dissenting in part).\nI concur with the majority opinion as to \u201c(a) \u2018Offen liquor in motor vehicle.\u2019\u201d\nI respectfully dissent as to: \u201c(b) \u2018Driving while intoxicated\u2019 \u201d, because in my opinion the words \u201cdriving while intoxicated\u201d are commonly understood to mean driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This is the common name of the offense and also a factual description of what occurred.\nAs to \u201c(c) \u2018License revoked\u2019 and \u2018no driver\u2019s license\u2019 \u201d; these words coupled with the word \u201cdriving\u201d also used in the complaint and the citation to \u201cSection 64-13-68, supra\u201d, constitute substantial compliance with \u00a7 36-21-21 (a), supra, in my opinion.\nAs to \u201c (d) \u2018Red light violation\u2019 \u201d; these words coupled with the citation to \u201cSection 64-16-5, supra\u201d, constitute substantial compliance with \u00a7 36-21-21 (a), supra, in my opinion. They are the common name of the offense and a factual description of what occurred.",
        "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part",
        "author": "HERNANDEZ, Judge"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chester H. Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, App. Defender, Robert R. Rothstein, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, David Metz McArthur, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "535 P.2d 66\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pete APODACA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1635.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nApril 16, 1975.\nChester H. Walter, Jr., Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, App. Defender, Robert R. Rothstein, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, David Metz McArthur, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0423-01",
  "first_page_order": 449,
  "last_page_order": 451
}