{
  "id": 1555155,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arvin Glenn GILMAN, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gilman",
  "decision_date": "1981-10-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 5129",
  "first_page": "67",
  "last_page": "68",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 N.M. 67"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "636 P.2d 886"
    }
  ],
  "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": "439 P.2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ariz.App. 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ariz. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        1233216
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ariz-app/7/0326-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 A.2d 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Md. 672",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        2225195
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/196/0672-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 777",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5320768
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "778"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0777-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 P. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 N.M. 246",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        4696467
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/18/0246-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 340",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5356710
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0340-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 298,
    "char_count": 3388,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9645056040283448e-07,
      "percentile": 0.738527033815485
    },
    "sha256": "3d573ec89cdd5036db140eb8371149de09ebf7935ea3d7702aada9da1ce21bac",
    "simhash": "1:13670e9b8114caa7",
    "word_count": 560
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:10:51.585150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "LOPEZ and DONNELLY, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arvin Glenn GILMAN, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWALTERS, Judge.\nDefendant was charged with and convicted of escape from jail, and he appeals. He argues that his escape from the location where he was performing labor on public works pursuant to \u00a7 33-3-19, N.M.S.A.1978, was not escape from jail under \u00a7 30-22-8, N.M.S.A.1978. We affirm.\nSection 30-22-8, supra, provides:\nEscape from jail consists of any person who shall have been lawfully committed to any jail, escaping or attempting to escape from such jail.\nWhoever commits escape from jail is guilty of a fourth degree felony.\nDefendant requests a \u201cstrict\u201d reading of the statute because \u00a7 30-22-8 is a penal statute. State v. Clark, 80 N.M. 340, 455 P.2d 844 (1969). He construes \u201cstrict\u201d to mean that \u201cescape from jail\u201d means only escape from the \u201cbuilding for confinement of persons held in lawful custody * * *; a lock-up.\u201d\nSuch a rigid interpretation violates a cardinal rule of statutory construction requiring that penal statutes \u201care not to be subjected to any strained or unnatural construction in order to work exemptions from their penalties.\u201d Ex parte DeVore, 18 N.M. 246, 136 P. 47 (1913). (Emphasis added.)\nSection 33-3-19, N.M.S.A.1978, imposes the duty on all county jail officers to compel jail prisoners to work on public streets, roads, and buildings between 9:00 a. m. and 4:00 p. m. during the term of any imprisonment. Defendant was assigned to a work detail at the county fairgrounds while serving a lawful sentence at the Roosevelt County jail, and it was while so assigned that he escaped.\nIn State v. Garcia, 78 N.M. 777, 778, 438 P.2d 521 (Ct.App.1968), we said:\nIf the meaning [of a penal statute] is doubtful, the spirit or reason of the law prevails over the literal meaning to prevent injustice. . Accordingly, we may .apply common sense in order to avoid an absurd result.\nTo construe the statute as defendant requests would, undeniably, produce an absurd result. Reason and common sense require us to recognize that the statute punishes one who escapes custody while lawfully sentenced to jail. In Johnson v. Warden of Maryland Penitentiary, 196 Md. 672, 75 A.2d 843 (1950), the court said:\nThere can be no doubt that the applicant was legally confined to the reformatory at the time of his escape. The mere fact that he was allowed to work outside on a farm in the daytime does not change the nature of his detention or confinement, and escape from the farm had no legal significance different from an escape from the reformatory itself.\nThat reasoning was relied on in State v. Morris, 7 Ariz.App. 326, 439 P.2d 208 (1968), where an Arizona statute as narrowly worded as New Mexico\u2019s \u00a7 30-22-8, supra, was under an attack similar to the one made in this appeal. We adopt the Johnson rationale, and are reinforced in our decision by the discussion found in Annot., Escape from * * * Institution Other Than Correctional * * * as Criminal Offense, at 69 A.L.R.3rd. 629-633, and the cases cited therein as well as in the 1981 supplement to that volume.\nThe judgment and conviction are affirmed.\nIt is so ordered.\nLOPEZ and DONNELLY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WALTERS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Candace Kern, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Art Encinias, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "636 P.2d 886\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arvin Glenn GILMAN, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 5129.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nOct. 27, 1981.\nCandace Kern, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Art Encinias, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0067-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 98
}