{
  "id": 1571120,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pedro MARTINEZ, Gilbert Martinez and Ricky Martinez, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Martinez",
  "decision_date": "1978-07-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 3545",
  "first_page": "804",
  "last_page": "805",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 804"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "581 P.2d 1299"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 N.M. 319",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2869816
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0319-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.M. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2868394
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/89/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.M. 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        8842073
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/40/0367-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3000,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.834,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4097480200583123
    },
    "sha256": "94a1c302c425e9808b297553109bf0d3f001bba21825e9bc04375a8495097b79",
    "simhash": "1:035f5cc8056d82e9",
    "word_count": 477
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pedro MARTINEZ, Gilbert Martinez and Ricky Martinez, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nWere defendants charged under the applicable statute? This issue involves Count I of the indictment which charged arson of an automobile having a value in excess of $1,000, in violation of \u00a7 40A-17-5, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6). Defendants moved to dismiss. The motion alleged \u00a7 40A-17-5, supra, was inapplicable because a \u201cgeneral statute defining the crime of Arson\u201d and that a specific statute was applicable. The asserted specific statute was \u00a7 64-9-6, N.M. S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss, the State appealed, we reverse.\nThe rule that the specific statute prevails over the general is seated in State v. Blevins, 40 N.M. 367, 60 P.2d 208 (1936).\nThe pertinent portions of \u00a7 64-9-6, supra, read:\nAny person who shall individually or in association with one or more others:\n******\n(d) Purposely destroys any part of a motor vehicle or purposely cuts, mashes, marks or in any other way destroys or damages any part, attachment, fastening or appurtenance of a motor vehicle, without the permission of the owner thereof;\nShall be guilty .\nThe pertinent portions of \u00a7 40A-17-5, supra, read:\nA. Arson consists of maliciously or willfully starting a fire or causing an explosion with the purpose of destroying or damaging any building, occupied structure or property of another\n******\nC. As used in this section, \u201coccupied structure\u201d includes a boat, trailer, car, airplane, structure or place adapted for the transportation or storage of property or for overnight accommodations of persons or for carrying on business therein, whether or not a person is actually present.\nSection 64-9-6, supra, applies to automobiles; paragraph C makes \u00a7 40A-17-5, supra, apply to automobiles. Section 64-9-6(d), supra, is a general statute directed to destroying or damaging an automobile. Section 40A-17-5, supra, is a specific statute directed to destroying or damaging an automobile by fire or explosion. Section 40A-17-5, supra, being more specific, is the applicable statute. In so holding, we have not considered the fact that \u00a7 40A-17-5, supra, requires a malicious or willful act and \u00a7 64-9-6(d), supra, does not. See State v. Vogenthaler, 89 N.M. 150, 548 P.2d 112 (Ct.App.1976).\nThe claim that the trial court erred in dismissing Count II of the indictment was not briefed and is deemed abandoned. State v. Ortiz, 90 N.M. 319, 563 P.2d 113 (Ct.App.1977).\nThe order of the trial court dismissing Count I of the indictment is reversed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Robert G. Sloan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.",
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Martha A. Daly, Asst. Appellate Defender, Roger Bargas, Asst. District Defender, Santa Fe, for defendants-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "581 P.2d 1299\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Pedro MARTINEZ, Gilbert Martinez and Ricky Martinez, Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 3545.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJuly 11, 1978.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Robert G. Sloan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Martha A. Daly, Asst. Appellate Defender, Roger Bargas, Asst. District Defender, Santa Fe, for defendants-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0804-01",
  "first_page_order": 840,
  "last_page_order": 841
}