{
  "id": 1557041,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert SAIZ, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Saiz",
  "decision_date": "1979-05-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 3867",
  "first_page": "776",
  "last_page": "777",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "92 N.M. 776"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "595 P.2d 414"
    }
  ],
  "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. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2875037
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/90/0498-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 2779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.799,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.74900068054248e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4948680405691606
    },
    "sha256": "815e0fa501b01cd89bfefd62bbae2efe5c5d8697eace7c172c3c9474b1abf21b",
    "simhash": "1:29fd2cfc15a3092c",
    "word_count": 446
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:13.817562+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-Appellee, v. Albert SAIZ, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nDefendant appeals his conviction of shoplifting merchandise valued over $100. Section 30-16-20, N.M.S.A.1978. We proposed summary affirmance; however, the appeal was reassigned to the limited calendar as to one issue. N.M.Crim.App. 207(d). The issue involves the propriety of the prosecutor\u2019s comment to the grand jury. The comment was:\nThis case was before you on a previous hearing. It was dismissed by Judge Baiamonte concerning, due to confusion over the identity of the defendant, and we are now again seeking an indictment on him.\nDefendant contends the comment was \u201cinherently prejudicial\u201d and, thus, a violation of due process. The \u201cinherent prejudice\u201d claimed is that the comment informed the grand jury that although its previous indictment had been dismissed, the grand jury should reindict. Defendant asserts the comment improperly colored the grand jury\u2019s evaluation of the evidence and influenced its assessment of whether there was probable cause to charge the defendant with a criminal offense. See \u00a7 31-6 \u2014 10, N.M.S.A.1978.\nDefendant ignores the facts and the reasoning of the trial court. The trial court remarked that the previous indictment had been dismissed because defendant indicated his name was other than Albert Saiz. The trial court wanted the grand jury to review the matter to insure that the proper person was charged. Defendant was known under several aliases, five aliases are listed in the indictment pursuant to which defendant was convicted. The trial court was of the view that presenting the matter to the grand jury a second time (after the first indictment was dismissed because of the identity question) was for the protection of the defendant. We agree.\nRelying on Davis v. Traub, 90 N.M. 498, 565 P.2d 1015 (1977), defendant asserts the grand jury is not the tool of the prosecutor to be manipulated at the will of the prosecutor. We agree, but there is no manipulation in this case. The prosecutor did no more than explain why a matter, previously considered, was again being presented to the grand jury. This case is not at all similar to Davis v. Traub, supra, where prejudice was presumed. For the conviction in this case to be reversed, an affirmative showing of prejudice is required. Rule of Crim.Proc. 7(a) and (d). No prejudice has been shown.\nThe judgment and sentence are affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Michael J. Dickman, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Sammy J. Quintana, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "595 P.2d 414\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Albert SAIZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 3867.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nMay 1, 1979.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Michael J. Dickman, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Sammy J. Quintana, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0776-01",
  "first_page_order": 812,
  "last_page_order": 813
}