{
  "id": 1582597,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Doe",
  "decision_date": "1982-08-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 5667",
  "first_page": "567",
  "last_page": "569",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 N.M. 567"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "650 P.2d 851"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 352,
    "char_count": 5421,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.777,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.079572127879695e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3753436976441484
    },
    "sha256": "f41c2b47e98b44af8e18033e2a99f1be159f5e08e1155430f39a960e2d73aff7",
    "simhash": "1:357c494dbd431463",
    "word_count": 861
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:49.367595+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WALTERS, C. J., and DONNELLY, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nLOPEZ, Judge.\nJohn Doe appeals an order of the trial court which transferred his case to the district court pursuant to \u00a7 32-1-29, N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl.Pamph.1981). We affirm.\nThe issue for decision is whether the findings of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence and whether they were made in accordance with the law.\nJohn Doe, a juvenile, was charged with one count of aggravated assault upon a peace officer contrary to \u00a7 30-22-22(A)(l), N.M.S.A.1978, and one count of aggravated assault contrary to \u00a7 30-3-2(C), N.M.S.A. 1978. The Children\u2019s Court attorney entered a motion to transfer the case to the district court. The hearing was conducted on March 17, 1982. The trial court entered four significant findings which are stated as follows:\nFinding No. 3. That there were reasonable grounds to believe that the respondent committed the delinquent acts contained in counts 1 and 2 of the petition in this matter to-wit, aggravated assault upon a peace officer and aggravated assault.\nFinding No. 4. That pursuant to section 30-1-29, N.M.S.A.1978 Comp, as amended of the Children\u2019s Code, the respondent was not amenable to care and rehabilitation through available facilities.\nFinding No. 5. The respondent was not committable to an institution for the mentally disordered or mentally disabled.\nFinding No. 6. That the interest of the community required that the respondent be placed upon legal restraint for discipline and that pursuant to \u00a7 32-1-29, N.M.S.A.1978, Comp., as amended, the matter should be transferred for prosecution in the district court.\nThe trial court determined that all of the requirements in \u00a7 32-1-29 had been established and entered an order transferring jurisdiction to the district court.\nJohn Doe challenges the court\u2019s order on grounds that there was insufficient evidence to support the court\u2019s finding No. 5, that \u201che was not committable to an institution for the mentally disordered or mentally disabled.\u201d John Doe argues that the court abused its discretion because the evidence was uncontradicted, that \u201che was committable to an institution\u201d. We disagree with John Doe. The summary of the evidence is as follows:\nDr. Lockwood testified that she used several psychological tests and reviewed the child\u2019s history in order to evaluate him. She was familiar with the programs at the New Mexico Boy\u2019s School at Springer and other group homes. In her opinion, the child was not amenable to treatment within the available facilities. She thought the child needed a secure setting with intense therapy over a period of perhaps three or five years. She was aware of the child\u2019s two previous commitments to the Boy\u2019s School and that the commitments were insufficient.\nDr. West, who also evaluated the child, testified that although he did not administer any formal psychological tests, he conducted a clinical interview and could still render an opinion. Based upon the child\u2019s history, he could label the child\u2019s personality as depressed, disordered and alcohol dependent. West said that the child was self-destructive and had tried to commit suicide in the \u201cD\u201d home. He concluded that the child was not amenable to treatment within available facilities and that the child was committable, under the Mental Health Code, due to mental disorder. He agreed with Dr. Lockwood that the child had not responded to previous programs and that he (the child) needed long term treatment. He further said that neither the Bernalillo County Mental Health Center nor the New Mexico State Hospital, Las Vegas would satisfy the child\u2019s needs.\nWebster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1976 ed.) defines \u201ccommittable\u201d as \u201clegally subject to being committed.\u201d A child is legally subject to being committed, in New Mexico,\nonly if it is shown by clear and convincing evidence:\n(1) that as a result of mental disorder or developmental disability the minor needs and is likely to benefit from the treatment or habilitation services proposed; and\n(2) that the proposed commitment is consistent with the treatment needs of the minor * * *.\nSection 43-1-16.1 G, N.M.S.A. (1979 Repl. Pamph.). Though this was not a proceeding for commitment under \u00a7 43-1-16.1, supra, the children\u2019s court is presumed to know what evidence is necessary to find a child \u201ccommittable,\u201d in order that he may be able to make the necessary finding of \u00a7 32-1-29 A(4)(c), N.M.S.A.1978, that the child is not committable.\nOne expert described him as neurogically normal with normal intelligence, but antisocial. The other said he suffered from atypical depression, alcoholism, and a personality disorder. Both agreed, however, that no matter how defendant\u2019s problems might be classified there was no available program or facility that could adequately treat him.\nBased upon that evidence alone, the trial court properly found that defendant was not committable.\nWe conclude that the record shows substantial evidence to support the trial court\u2019s findings and the findings are supported by law.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nWALTERS, C. J., and DONNELLY, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "LOPEZ, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas J. Horne, Thomas J. Horne, P. C., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Eddie Michael Gallegos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "650 P.2d 851\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John DOE, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 5667.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 10, 1982.\nCertiorari Denied Sept. 16, 1982.\nThomas J. Horne, Thomas J. Horne, P. C., Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Eddie Michael Gallegos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0567-01",
  "first_page_order": 605,
  "last_page_order": 607
}