{
  "id": 1568740,
  "name": "CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew R. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Albuquerque v. Martinez",
  "decision_date": "1979-12-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 4077",
  "first_page": "704",
  "last_page": "705",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.M. 704"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "604 P.2d 842"
    }
  ],
  "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": "475 S.W.2d 553",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10085609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/475/0553-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2561,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.806,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7451339977763492e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7076659681703451
    },
    "sha256": "06cb8e5cbde194549e808e39808a0dfcf9c273f149acb7ae590361c0ff48d6b1",
    "simhash": "1:83adbd9f7d18d289",
    "word_count": 424
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:36.909287+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LOPEZ and ANDREWS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew R. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nThe defendant was convicted of shoplifting, a petty misdemeanor, in the municipal court and was sentenced to thirty days. He appealed to the district court and after a de novo hearing his conviction was affirmed and he was sentenced to thirty days. He appeals contending that there was a failure of proof of value. We disagree and affirm.\nAlbuquerque Ordinance 3 \u2014 2(B)(1) reads in part:\nShoplifting consists of any one or combination of the following acts:\n1. Willfully taking possession of any merchandise with the intent of converting it without paying for it.\nSubsection (C)(2) reads:\n\u201cMerchandise\u201d means chattels of any type or description of the value of $100 or less offered for sale in or about a store.\nIn the district court Mr. Henry Lopez, security manager for K-Mart, testified that he observed the defendant in the store. The defendant put on a man\u2019s coat and left the store without paying for it. Mr. Lopez, in addition, testified, \u201cThis coat was valued at $47.97.\u201d He further described the coat, \u201cIt was a man\u2019s ski jacket, kind of heavy, filled with something like polyester.\u201d Additionally, he testified that he did speak to the defendant, \u201cWhen I stopped him outside, he said that he was going to ask his wife for some money to pay for it.\u201d During cross-examination the following exchange took place:\nQ. And what is your basis for saying the coat was worth a certain amount of money?\nA. Mr. Martinez \u2014 when I observed him, he removed the coat, removed the tag, and I picked it up where he dropped it.\nThe above testimony is sufficient circumstantial proof that the coat had some market value at the time of conversion by the defendant. Additionally, the trier of fact could properly infer that the price tag was the source from which the security manager concluded the precise value of $47.97. We adopt the holding in Norris v. State, 475 S.W.2d 553 (Tenn.App.1971):\nWe hold that in a shoplifting case evidence that merchandise was displayed for regular sale at a marked price representing its retail price is sufficient circumstantial evidence of value, where' totally uncontradicted, to support a conviction grounded upon the marked price as its value.\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nLOPEZ and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James K. Gilman, Gilman & Maguire, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Albert N. Thiel, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "604 P.2d 842\nCITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew R. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 4077.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nDec. 18, 1979.\nJames K. Gilman, Gilman & Maguire, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nAlbert N. Thiel, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0704-01",
  "first_page_order": 750,
  "last_page_order": 751
}