{ "id": 1573052, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy Kenneth LOPEZ aka Sammy K. Lopez, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lopez", "decision_date": "1980-01-24", "docket_number": "No. 4138", "first_page": "349", "last_page": "352", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "94 N.M. 349" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "610 P.2d 753" } ], "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": "399 F.2d 740", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2140693 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "743" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/399/0740-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 P. 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 P. 757", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "30 N.M. 54", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8841238 ], "year": 1924, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/30/0054-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 P. 250", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1907, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "14 N.M. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 204533 ], "year": 1907, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/14/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.M. 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2851245 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1962, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17" }, { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/70/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 P. 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.", "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "27 N.M. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8842639 ], "year": 1921, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/27/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 N.M. 302", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1584729 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1952, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/56/0302-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N.M. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8501892 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/76/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N.M. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 8500834 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/76/0141-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 N.M. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2821753 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/86/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 N.M. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1553075 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "222" }, { "page": "996" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/32/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 N.E. 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1916, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "125" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2839723 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/88/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2868552 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2872528 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 638", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2867912 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0638-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2872270 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.M. 366", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557185 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0366-01" ] }, { "cite": "561 P.2d 1350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 N.M. 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2766048 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/84/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2872048 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 N.M. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2867947 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/90/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N.M. 436", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568698 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0436-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 541, "char_count": 8484, "ocr_confidence": 0.81, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.791116202925293e-08, "percentile": 0.4156076280895141 }, "sha256": "51d14c3fa2348de7038bce763526aa64f51e79fdd3520e4a645d075943976b5e", "simhash": "1:3e41e50b4d27fa3b", "word_count": 1414 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:16.712923+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LOPEZ and WALTERS, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy Kenneth LOPEZ aka Sammy K. Lopez, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of larceny in violation of \u00a7 30-16-1, N.M.S.A. 1978 and appeals. We affirm.\nThe sole issue on this appeal is whether U.J.I. Crim. 16.00 is erroneous. We believe that it is but we have no authority to declare it so.\nDefendant claims that taking another\u2019s property \u201cwithout consent\u201d of the person is an essential element of larceny and lack of consent was omitted from the instruction.\nOn three previous occasions, the Court held that it had no authority to review instructions approved by the Supreme Court. State v. Montano, 93 N.M. 436, 601 P.2d 69 (Ct.App. 1979); State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977); State v. Scott, 90 N.M. 256, 561 P.2d 1349 (Ct.App. 1977). Scott stated the reasons as follows:\nThis court is to follow precedents of the Supreme Court; it is not free to abolish instructions approved by the Supreme Court. Alexander v. Delgado, 84 N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778 (1973) .... [Id. 257, 561 P.2d 1350.]\nDelgado stands for the proposition that this Court is bound by the precedents of the Supreme Court; that this Court lacks authority to overrule prior opinions of the Supreme Court or to alter, modify or abolish any instructions approved by the Supreme Court. Collins v. Michelbach, 92 N.M. 366, 588 P.2d 1041 (1979). It is suggested that this rule is harsh and abrasive. It should be modified to grant the Court of Appeals authority in these respects subject to an automatic review by the Supreme Court. An approved instruction that is valid is controlling. It modifies any previous decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary. Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc. v. Goffe, 90 N.M. 753, 568 P.2d 589 (1977). It is important to determine whether U.J.I. Crim. 16.00 is valid because it appears to be contrary to prior New Mexico opinions.\nDelgado does not deny this Court the right to express its views upon previous opinions of the Supreme Court nor on the part that \u201cwithout consent\u201d plays in the approved instructions on the crime of larceny. To deny this right deprives a defendant of an adequate or salutory basis for review in the Supreme Court. In Williams v. Cobb, 90 N.M. 638, 567 P.2d 487 (Ct.App. 1977), the validity of U.J.I. Civ. 3.1 was questioned in a special concurring opinion. Collins, supra, held U.J.I. Civ. 3.1 erroneous. Although not stated in Collins, a dissenting opinion of this Court again strongly urged that U.J.I. Civ. 3.1 be held erroneous. Collins v. Michelbach, No. 3088, decided September 5, 1978 (not published). For other views expressed by this Court in its relationship with the Supreme Court, see Peralta v. Martinez, 90 N.M. 391, 564 P.2d 194 (Ct.App. 1977); State v. Bazan, 90 N.M. 209, 561 P.2d 482 (Ct.App. 1977); State v. Chavez, 88 N.M. 451, 541 P.2d 631 (Ct.App. 1975). Merely because the Supreme Court approved an instruction submitted by a committee appointed for the purpose, does not make it sacrosanct. It becomes infallible only after the Supreme Court opinionates on the validity of the instruction. No opinion has yet been written on U.J.I. Crim. 16.00.\nThe Committee Commentary states:\nThis instruction does not use the words \u201cwithout consent\u201d or the like to indicate that larceny involves a trespassory taking. See generally, Perkins, Criminal Law 245-46 (2d ed. 1969). The committee believed that the element of trespassory taking was covered by this instruction together with the instruction on general criminal intent, Instruction 1.50. [Emphasis added.]\nA\u201c!itrespassory taking\u201d means \u201cthat there could be no larceny without a trespass, and there could be no trespass unless the property was in the possession of the person from whom it was charged to have been stolen.\u201d People v. Csontos, 275 111. 402 114 N.E. 123, 125 (1916). This type of \u201ctrespassory taking\u201d comes within the doctrine of trespass de bonis asportatis which means \u201ctrespass for goods carried away.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, p. 1675 (Rev. 4th Ed. 1968). At common law, criminal trespass of personalty occurred when, in the presence of the possessor, there is an invasion of the actual possession of this person by force or at least against his will. It is universally recognized that without this trespass there can be no larceny. 50 Am.Jur.2d Larceny, \u00a7 14 (1970). In New Mexico, \u201cThat larceny is an offense against possession there can be no doubt.\u201d State v. Curry, 32 N.M. 219, 222, 252 P. 994, 996 (1927).\nThe reason that \u201cwithout consent\u201d was omitted from the instruction by the committee was to show that \u201ctrespassory taking\u201d involved larceny. It does.\nDoes the instruction cover the element of \u201ctrespassory taking\u201d? The answer is \u201cno.\u201d\nThe court instructed the jury that the elements of the crime were:\n1. The Defendant took and carried away United States Currency belonging to another . . . ;\n2. At the time he took the property, the Defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of it;\nSection 30-16-1 reads in pertinent part:\nLarceny consists of the stealing of anything of value which belongs to another.\n\u201c \u2018Stealing\u2019 implies a taking without consent.\u201d State v. Rhea, 86 N.M. 291, 523 P.2d 26 (Ct.App. 1974). This means that if the defendant took the money with the consent of the owner, he had the right to permanently deprive the owner of it.\nThe two elements of larceny are (1) that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by a felonious taking. State v. Buchanan, 76 N.M. 141, 412 P.2d 565 (1966); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966). \u201cFelonious taking\u201d means a taking with intent to commit the crime of larceny. Brown v. Village of Dewing, 56 N.M. 302, 243 P.2d 609 (1952). This, of course, means an unlawful taking out of the possession of the owner without his consent. State v. Curry, supra ; State v. Liston, 27 N.M. 500, 202 P. 696 (1921). In Curry, the prosecutrix testified with reference to her permission, consent and knowledge.\nIn an action seeking damages for trespass, Texas-New Mexico Pipe Line Co. v. Allstate Construction, 70 N.M. 15, 17, 369 P.2d 401, 402 (1962) said:\nTrespass to personalty is the intentional use or interference with a chattel which is in the possession of another, without justification.\n\u201cWithout justification\u201d is equivalent to the word \u201cunlawfully.\u201d Territory v. Gonzales, 14 N.M. 31, 89 P. 250 (1907). An \u201cunlawful taking\u201d is equivalent to a \u201cfelonious taking.\u201d\nState v. McKinley, 30 N.M. 54, 227 P. 757 (1924) settles the issue \u201cwithout consent.\u201d This case involved defendant\u2019s contention that the indictment was defective because it failed to charge that property was taken without the consent of the owner. In discussing the subject, the court said:\nAt common law the nonconsent of the owner was not a matter to be expressly charged in the indictment, but was one of defense. Indeed, the proof should show, either directly or by circumstances, the nonconsent of the owner in order to support a conviction, because otherwise no larceny would be proven. This is a matter of proof, however, and need not be affirmatively charged in the indictment. . [Emphasis added.] [Id. 58, 227 P. 759.]\nBennett v. United States, 399 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir. 1968) said:\n. To consummate the offense of larceny there must occur a taking of property which is trespassory in nature, \u201cwithout the consent of the owner. . . \u201d\nThis appears to be the general rule. See, 50 Am.Jur.2d Larceny, \u00a7 23 (1970); 52A C.J.S. Larceny, \u00a7 101 (1968) where McKinley, supra, is cited; 2 Wharton\u2019s Criminal Law and Procedure (Anderson), \u00a7 474 (1957); Perkins on Criminal Law, 246 (2d Ed. 1969); 3 Underhill\u2019s Criminal Evidence, \u00a7 594 (5th Ed. 1957).\nU.J.I. Crim. 16.00 is erroneous for the following reasons:\n(1) It does not include within it that the defendant took and carried away property \u201cwithout the consent of the owner.\u201d\n(2) It does not state that the taking was \u201cfelonious.\u201d\nNevertheless, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed subject to review by the Supreme Court.\nAffirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nLOPEZ and WALTERS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, Richard A. Winterbottom, Asst. Public Defender, Mark Shapiro, Asst. App. Defender, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.", "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Sammy J. Quintana, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "610 P.2d 753\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy Kenneth LOPEZ aka Sammy K. Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 4138.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 24, 1980.\nWrit of Certiorari Granted Feb. 25, 1980.\nJohn B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Santa Fe, Richard A. Winterbottom, Asst. Public Defender, Mark Shapiro, Asst. App. Defender, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Sammy J. Quintana, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0349-01", "first_page_order": 385, "last_page_order": 388 }