{
  "id": 2872451,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary ESQUIBEL and Rick Kloeppel, Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Esquibel",
  "decision_date": "1977-01-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 2650",
  "first_page": "117",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 N.M. 117"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "560 P.2d 181"
    }
  ],
  "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": "89 N.M. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2865410
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N.M. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2766431
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/84/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2864061
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 N.M. 631",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5358645
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/81/0631-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2868394
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2541,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.799,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.364254708769893e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3366068832584448
    },
    "sha256": "2532e7e6a596da54611ef99a7dffcc99cad327d10c31b2434d29091997cdf05c",
    "simhash": "1:9cf7d619a0accc30",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:34:48.706767+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. Gary ESQUIBEL and Rick Kloeppel, Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nConvicted of possession of marijuana contrary to \u00a7 54-11-22(A)(1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2,1962, Supp.1975) defendants appeal. Defendant Kloeppel abandons certain issues raised in the docketing statement because they are not supported by the record. State v. Vogenthaler, 89 N.M. 150, 548 P.2d 112 (Ct.App. 1976). Kloeppel\u2019s point for reversal is the failure of the trial court to grant his motion for a directed verdict. Esquibel raises three issues for reversal: (1) directed verdict; (2) entrapment as a matter of law; and, (3) sufficiency of the evidence to go to the grand jury. We affirm.\nDirected Verdicts\nBoth defendants contend that the legislature has narrowed the meaning of marijuana. Section 54-11-2(0), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, 1962, Supp.1975) sets forth the definition of marijuana as \u201call parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.\u201d We need not answer this contention. Although, there was conflicting testimony by the experts, there was evidence (all the tests when taken as a whole) from which the jury could determine that the substance was \u201cCannabis sativa L.\u201d State v. Mora, 81 N.M. 631, 471 P.2d 201 (Ct.App. 1970).\nEsquibel also asserts that the statute (\u00a7 54-11-22(A)(2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2, 1962, Supp.1975)) means that when THC was proved marijuana was excluded. Here the legislature separated marijuana (with a lesser penalty) from THC (as extracted from marijuana and more potent) by making its distribution subject to a greater penalty. Section 54-11-22(A)(2), supra.\nEntrapment\nEsquibel asserts entrapment as a matter of law. A review of the facts fails to disclose entrapment. State v. Fiechter, 89 N.M. 74, 547 P.2d 557 (1976) overruling State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259, 501 P.2d 1247 (Ct.App. 1972).\nSufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury\nThis court will not review the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. State v. McGill, 89 N.M. 631, 556 P.2d 39 (Ct.App. 1976).\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles G. Berry, Marchiondo & Berry, Albuquerque, for Esquibel.",
      "Jan A. Hartke, Chief Public Defender, Reginald J. Storment, Appellate Defender, William H. Lazar, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant Kloeppel.",
      "Suzanne Tanner, Louis Druxman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "560 P.2d 181\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gary ESQUIBEL and Rick Kloeppel, Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 2650.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 18, 1977.\nCertiorari Denied Feb. 16, 1977.\nCharles G. Berry, Marchiondo & Berry, Albuquerque, for Esquibel.\nJan A. Hartke, Chief Public Defender, Reginald J. Storment, Appellate Defender, William H. Lazar, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant Kloeppel.\nSuzanne Tanner, Louis Druxman, Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0117-01",
  "first_page_order": 153,
  "last_page_order": 154
}