Case Title: Lopez v. State

Citation: 610 P.2d 745, 94 N.M. 341

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1980-04-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
610 P.2d 745 (1980) 94 N.M. 341 Sammy Kenneth LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent. No. 12931. Supreme Court of New Mexico. April 16, 1980. *746 Mark Shapiro, Albuquerque, for petitioner. Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Sammy J. Quintana, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent. FEDERICI, Justice. Defendant was tried and convicted of larceny. On appeal, the Court of Appeals held that N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00, N.M.S.A. 1978, is erroneous but that it had no authority to declare it so. This Court granted certiorari. We concur with the result reached by the Court of Appeals, but for a different reason. We do not agree with the statement that N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00 is erroneous. The Court of Appeals failed to set forth in its opinion N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00 and its counterpart, N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 1.50, N.M.S.A. 1978, both of which were given at trial and relate to the element of trespassory taking in larceny cases. The Court of Appeals quoted a portion of the Committee Commentary following N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00. N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00, in its entirety, reads: The Committee Commentary following N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00 reads: The Use Note following N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 1.50, reads, in part: N.M.U.J.I.Crim. 16.00, and N.M.U.J.I. Crim. 1.50, together correctly state the law applicable to larceny. The judgment of the trial court and conviction of defendant are affirmed. IT IS SO ORDERED. SOSA, C.J., and EASLEY, PAYNE and FELTER, JJ., concur.