{ "id": 2841404, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rockee McCUISTION, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCuistion", "decision_date": "1975-06-04", "docket_number": "No. 1585", "first_page": "94", "last_page": "95", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "88 N.M. 94" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "537 P.2d 702" } ], "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": "56 N.M. 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584719 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/56/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N.M. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 5332755 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/83/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "54 A.L.R.3d 100", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "132-36" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 Neb. 745", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 5245454 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/150/0745-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 A.L.R.3d 93", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "473 S.W.2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10123740 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/473/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "512 P.2d 260", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "case_ids": [ 4594509 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/colo/182/0189-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 257, "char_count": 2883, "ocr_confidence": 0.821, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.768920657502448e-08, "percentile": 0.5315473990954686 }, "sha256": "7aadada6e92732a31b030293f135262cbaa52bdadecaa404273b5bbbf4d00190", "simhash": "1:10df580e796c63b8", "word_count": 480 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rockee McCUISTION, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of receiving a stolen vehicle in violation of \u00a7 64-9-5, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2). He appeals. We reverse.\nA. Misconduct of the district attorney denied defendant a fair trial.\nThe State called as a rebuttal witness the assistant district attorney. Sometime after commission of the crime, over strenuous objection, he testified about being at Ned\u2019s Lounge in Albuquerque at ten o\u2019clock in the evening. While there, he was approached by defendant. The statements allegedly made by the defendant were critical to the State\u2019s case.\nThe assistant district attorney made a closing argument for the State. He said in part:\nI wouldn\u2019t come up here, I can assure you, ladies and gentlemen, and take that stand and fabricate a story like that because that would be perjury. And so if you accept what I said, what he told me, it certainly contradicts what he told the Court when he was on the stand as to how he got that car.\nThe assistant district attorney argued his own credibility of the jury. This denied the defendant a fair trial.\nUnder the above circumstances, it is reversible error for a district attorney to be both witness and prosecutor. People v. Spencer, 512 P.2d 260 (Colo.1973); State v. Hayes, 473 S.W.2d 688 (Mo.1971), 53 A.L.R.3d 93 (1971); Frank v. State, 150 Neb. 745, 35 N.W.2d 816 (1949); Annot., Prosecuting Attorney as a Witness in Criminal Case, 54 A.L.R.3d 100, 132-36 (1973).\nWhen a district attorney finds it necessary to testify on behalf of the prosecution, he should withdraw and leave the trial of the case to other counsel. State v. Hayes, supra; Annot., 54 A.L.R.3d, supra, at 118-25.\nB. Denial of change of venue not subject to review.\nDefendant filed a motion for change of venue. A hearing was held and the motion was denied because the court believed the defendant could obtain a fair trial in Quay County.\nUnder \u00a7 21-5-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4), upon hearing on the motion, the trial court \u201cshall make findings and either grant or overrule said motion.\u201d No such findings were made. Defendant contends this was error.\nThe defendant made no request for findings and did not submit any requested findings. The absence of findings is waived and is not subject to review. State v. Mosier, 83 N.M. 213, 490 P.2d 471 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Fernandez, 56 N.M. 689, 248 P.2d 679 (1952).\nReversed. Defendant is granted a new trial.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Mary C. Walters, Marchiondo & Berry, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.", "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Lanny Mes-sersmith, Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "537 P.2d 702\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rockee McCUISTION, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1585.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 4, 1975.\nRehearing Denied June 12, 1975.\nCertiorari Denied July 2, 1975.\nMary C. Walters, Marchiondo & Berry, P. A., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Lanny Mes-sersmith, Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0094-01", "first_page_order": 124, "last_page_order": 125 }