{
  "id": 1557045,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Allen ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Adams",
  "decision_date": "1979-04-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 12033",
  "first_page": "669",
  "last_page": "670",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 N.M. 669"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "593 P.2d 1072"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M.",
    "id": 8835,
    "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "90 N.M. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2867583
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1977,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "442"
        },
        {
          "page": "1324"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 N.M. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1569684
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/42/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5328682
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "771"
        },
        {
          "page": "199"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0769-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571107
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0700-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 4592,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.824,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.86486014027979e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4591831415653963
    },
    "sha256": "75548f02f0a1043011121528135c5d7379b68b0460047a508d0c6f68bade51b2",
    "simhash": "1:91856b6ec8c6039a",
    "word_count": 773
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:13.817562+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "McMANUS, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Allen ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nEASLEY, Justice.\nAdams was convicted of first-degree felony murder based on robbery. He appeals. We affirm.\nAdams raises two points on appeal: whether substantial evidence supports the trial court\u2019s finding that Adams\u2019 confession was voluntary; and whether the jury was properly instructed on the essential elements of felony murder.\nAdams contends that his confession was not voluntary because it was induced by an implied promise of leniency. He relies on the testimony of Officer Archuleta who testified that Adams had asked him if it might go easier on him if he made a statement; but that Archuleta did not remember his exact reply to Adams. Since he believed he was offered leniency and Archuleta did not remember his exact words, Adams claims there was no substantial evidence that he was not offered leniency. However, a review of the transcript clearly contradicts Adams\u2019 position.\nAdams testified at the suppression hearing:\nWell, like I said, when I asked about the leniency, he said he did not \u2014 He didn\u2019t answer me directly that it would help. He didn\u2019t say that it wouldn\u2019t help.\nWell, he told me that if I would make a statement, now, it would be the best time to make it because it would go easier somehow.\nOfficer Archuleta testified as follows: [H]e implied that he wanted to know whether leniency would be granted and I flat out advised Mr. Adams that I am in no position to make any kind of promises whatsoever and that I want that understood. If he wanted to give me a statement, I will take it. If not, that\u2019s all I have to say to you.\nI do honestly remember not making any kind of suggestion towards leniency; that much I do know.\nAfter the evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Adams\u2019 motion to suppress his confession. Our question is whether the trial court\u2019s decision is supported by substantial evidence. Rodriquez v. State, 91 N.M. 700, 580 P.2d 126 (1978). State v. Watson, 82 N.M. 769, 771, 487 P.2d 197, 199 (1971) holds:\nA prima facie case for admission is made where the officers testify that the confession was obtained without threat or coercion or promise of immunity. If the accused confesses because he was induced by the promise that his punishment will not be so severe as it otherwise might be, the confession is not admissible because it was not voluntary. State v. Lord, 42 N.M. 638, 84 P.2d 80 (1938).\nThere is substantial evidence in the record that Adams\u2019 confession was not obtained by an express or implied promise of leniency.\nAdams argues that the jury was not properly instructed on all the essential elements of felony murder. He relies on State v. Harrison, 90 N.M. 439, 564 P.2d 1321 (1977), which held that in a felony murder the death must be caused by the acts of the defendant or his accomplice without an independent intervening force. In Harrison, this court stated, \u201cIn view of this decision, N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 2.04 . . . will have to be altered to conform herewith.\u201d Id. at 442, 564 P.2d at 1324.\nParagraph 2 of the uniform instruction, both before and after Harrison, required that defendant be found to have caused the death of the victim during the commission of the felony.\nAdams was tried after the decision in the Harrison case, but before the amendment to the instruction. The jury was given a modified instruction which incorporated the language of the Harrison opinion. The instruction specified that the state must prove that:\n3. There is a causal relationship between the robbery and the death of Gregory Martin Kary.\nThe jury was also instructed that: Causation consists of those acts of defendant initiating and leading to the homicide without an independent force intervening, even if defendant\u2019s acts are unintentional or accidental.\nAdams contends that the jury was not instructed that the victim\u2019s death had to have been caused during Adams\u2019 commission of the felony of robbery. We do not agree.\nThe instructions given were adequate to define the necessary causal connection between the robbery and the homicide. To return a verdict of guilty, the jury had to find that the death of the victim was caused by Adams\u2019 acts in the commission of the robbery.\nWe affirm the conviction.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nMcMANUS, Senior Justice, and FEDERICI, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EASLEY, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Reginald J. Storment and Martha A. Daly, Appellate Defenders, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "593 P.2d 1072\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Allen ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 12033.\nSupreme Court of New Mexico.\nApril 30, 1979.\nReginald J. Storment and Martha A. Daly, Appellate Defenders, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Ralph W. Muxlow, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0669-01",
  "first_page_order": 705,
  "last_page_order": 706
}