{
  "id": 2838588,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonzo JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jaramillo",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 1694",
  "first_page": "179",
  "last_page": "180",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 N.M. 179"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "538 P.2d 1201"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "sha256": "6f5f22a9ccbeacf373a31f12e8d9e1c3f22ce2b2e252e15791a1a90ffbb9c974",
    "simhash": "1:14e07cda6574b963",
    "word_count": 413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:46.516747+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonzo JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of unlawful possession of heroin in violation of \u00a7 54-11-23, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2). He appeals. We affirm.\nA. Defendant had a fair trial.\nThe State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was in unlawful possession of heroin found under the seat of his car.\nDefendant contends that his conviction was not based on a clear and correct understanding of the facts; therefore, he was denied a fair trial.\nA police officer testified that he found some caps of heroin in defendant\u2019s mouth which were tagged in, whereas the State later admitted out of the presence of the jury that the tinfoil found in defendant\u2019s mouth did not contain heroin. Defendant contends this conflict was not explained to the jury by the court or the district attorney. The defendant did not request that the State\u2019s admission be submitted to the jury. It was defendant\u2019s duty to request the admission and then explain to the jury in closing argument the conflict, if any, in the officer\u2019s testimony.\nOn this issue, the defendant had a fair trial. His conviction was based on a clear and correct understanding of the fact that heroin was found in defendant\u2019s car.\nB. Motion for psychiatric examination was properly denied.\nOn March 12, 1974, defendant filed a motion for a psychiatric examination. On March 18, 1974, the motion'was denied.\nDefendant contends that defense counsel was prevented from making a thorough evaluation of a possible insanity defense at trial.\nRule 35(c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure [\u00a7 41-23-35(c), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1973 Supp.)] provides:\nUpon motion of any defendant, and upon good cause shown, the court shall order a mental examination of the defendant before making any determination of competency under this rule. . .\nThe record is silent on any attempt of defendant to show good cause for a mental examination. The motion was properly denied.\nC. Section 54-11-23 did not violate defendant\u2019s constitutional rights.\nDefendant contends that \u00a7 54 \u2014 11-23 violated his constitutional rights because he was a narcotic addict. There was no evidence that defendant was an addict. This point is without merit.\nWe affirm.\nIt is so ordered.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SUTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bruce S. Garber, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Louis Druxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "538 P.2d 1201\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alonzo JARAMILLO, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 1694.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJuly 23, 1975.\nBruce S. Garber, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, Louis Druxman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0179-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 210
}