{
  "id": 2861192,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph Gregory PALMER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Palmer",
  "decision_date": "1976-06-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 2378",
  "first_page": "329",
  "last_page": "331",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.M. 329"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "552 P.2d 231"
    }
  ],
  "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": "88 N.M. 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2841591
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/88/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2763757
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5361327
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.M. 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2821204
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/86/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 753",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5361069
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0753-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2867427
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 N.M. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8500410
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/76/0062-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 4544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.763,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.971990080017346e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5023839227692425
    },
    "sha256": "512f57f3e4c97c1be99162f115406f5b7c11071d3ddb36263fb073903a51ee37",
    "simhash": "1:f54cfe6804a5fde8",
    "word_count": 753
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:52.908635+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. Ralph Gregory PALMER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nConvicted of kidnapping contrary to \u00a7 40A-4 \u2014 1, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972, Supp.1973) and aggravated assault upon a peace officer contrary to \u00a7 40A-22-21, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972) defendant appeals asserting five points for reversal: (1) prosecutor\u2019s comment on defendant\u2019s silence; (2) insanity as a matter of law; (3) change of venue; (4) evidence would not sustain conviction of kidnapping; and, (5) failure to quash indictment on assault charge. We affirm.\nProsecutor\u2019s Comment\nDuring the state\u2019s case in chief, defendant attempted, through cross-examination, to bring in testimony regarding what defendant told the witness about his encounter with a police officer during an event which was unrelated to the present charges. The following colloquy occurred before the jury:\n\u201cProsecutor: Objection. Hearsay.\n\u201cDefense: All we\u2019re asking is what he told her.\n\u201cProsecutor: Your Honor, what they\u2019re doing is putting their entire defense on without this man testifying, and . . .\n\u201cCourt: Just, just take it easy and don\u2019t argue. I understand your objection.\n\u201cDefense: I think I might have to move for a mistrial for a comment like that.\n\u201cCourt: Let\u2019s take one thing at a time. I\u2019ll sustain the objection.\n\u201cDefense: Well, I would like some sort of acknowledgment to the jury that that comment is out of line without the defendant\u2019s testimony.\n\u201cCourt: Go ahead at this time.\u201d\nDefendant asserts that the foregoing is reversible error under State v. Miller, 76 N.M. 62, 412 P.2d 240 (1966); State v. Leyba, 89 N.M. 28, 546 P.2d 876 (Ct.App. 1976) and State v. Jones, 80 N.M. 753, 461 P.2d 235 (Ct.App.1969). We disagree. We do so on the basis of the record and the context when the remark occurred.\nFirst, what defendant was asking the witnesses to testify to was hearsay. If this was not recognized by the question then it was recognized by his response \u201cAll we\u2019re asking is what he told her.\u201d On this basis, the comment was addressed to the court in a context that was invited by the defense. He cannot now be heard to complain. See State v. Cruz, 86 N.M. 455, 525 P.2d 382 (Ct.App.1974); State v. Sedillo, 81 N.M. 47, 462 P.2d 632 (Ct.App.1969).\nSecond, the comment was not a direct and unequivocal reference to the defendant\u2019s silence. We cannot say as a matter of law that \u201cthis man\u201d referred to the defendant. In the context of the case, at that time, it could also have referred to the police officer. The statement was not a direct reference to the defendant\u2019s silence. Miller, supra; Leyba, supra, and Jones, supra, are not applicable.\nInsanity as a Matter of Law\nDefendant contends the trial court should have directed a verdict on the issue of insanity. He does this even though he recognizes that there was evidence to the contrary. This point is without merit. See State v. Victorian, 84 N.M. 491, 505 P.2d 436 (1973).\nChange of Venue\nThe defense called a broadcaster who testified about the publicity in another recent case of a somewhat similar nature. However, he could not relate that case to the instant case. The point is without merit.\nEvidence of Kidnapping\nDefendant contends the evidence will not sustain a conviction of kidnapping. We disagree.\nThe evidence as cited by defendant is not all the evidence in the record. The testimony of the mother-in-law is sufficient to show that the individuals were being held as hostages and confined against their will. This point is frivolous.\nFailure to Quash the Indictment on Aggravated Assault\nThe morning of trial defendant moved to quash the indictment. He did this on the grounds that he had just learned certain facts from the prosecutor. Defendant had never requested a statement of facts pursuant to Rule 9 of N.M.R. Crim.P. The trial court ruled, among other things, that the motion was not timely filed. Rule 33 of N.M.R.Crim.P. We agree.\nSince defendant had not availed himself of the orderly processes set forth in N.M. R.Crim.P. we will not entertain his contention on appeal. The motion was not timely. See State v. Helker, 88 N.M. 650, 545 P.2d 1028 (Ct.App.1975).\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jan Hartke, Acting Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, App. Defender, Don Klein, Asst. App. Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., F. Scott MacGillivray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "552 P.2d 231\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ralph Gregory PALMER, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 2378.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJune 29, 1976.\nJan Hartke, Acting Chief Public Defender, Bruce L. Herr, App. Defender, Don Klein, Asst. App. Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., F. Scott MacGillivray, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0329-01",
  "first_page_order": 365,
  "last_page_order": 367
}