Case Title: State v. Campos

Citation: 301 P.2d 329, 61 N.M. 392

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1956-09-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
301 P.2d 329 (1956) 61 N.M. 392 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert CAMPOS and Bob Moon, Defendants-Appellants. No. 6085. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 5, 1956. Hartley & Buzzard, Clovis, for appellants. Richard H. Robinson, Atty. Gen., Paul L. Billhymer, Fred M. Standley, Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellee. SADLER, Justice. The defendants have jointly appealed from a judgment of the district court of Curry County sentencing them to the penitentiary for the crime of breaking and entering in the nighttime with intent to commit the crime of larceny and with grand larceny. *330 They have presented two claims of error which counsel for defendants argue under two points, the first of which reads: Exhibit No. 2 was a pair of trousers; Exhibit No. 4, a man's gray coat; Exhibit No. 5, a man's white coat; Exhibit No. 6, a pair of white trousers. Exhibits Nos. 7 and 10 were samples of white paint, and Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9 were samples of grease. The principal argument of counsel for defendants under this point, particularly as to Exhibits Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6, rests on a claim that the exhibits mentioned were not sufficiently connected with the defendants, or shown to have been worn by them at the time of the crime and that this shortage of proof by the State as to the exhibits mentioned took away its right to introduce Exhibits Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. Thus it is that error was committed by the court, say counsel for defendants, by the reception in evidence of all such exhibits. The attorney general takes an entirely different view of the evidence. We are reminded by him that the evidence of the State placed both defendants in Clovis on the evening the crime was committed. Exhibit No. 2, being a pair of trousers, was taken from the defendant Moon by Sergeant Miles of New Mexico State Police. Moon was arrested during the day following the crime and the trousers identified as Exhibit No. 2 were taken from him as a part of his wearing apparel at the time of his arrest. Certainly, there is no failure to identify this exhibit as clothing belonging to him. Exhibit No. 4, a man's gray coat, was secured by a police officer from the defendant Moon's home. The possession of chattels raises a presumption of ownership of such chattels. 9 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.) 425, § 2515. As to Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6, being a white coat and a pair of white trousers, there was evidence they belonged to defendant Campos and that he was wearing them on the night or evening of the crime charged. Other testimony connected Campos with these two articles of wearing apparel. Coming now to Exhibits 7 through 10, inclusive, as to which there is no serious contention by defendants' counsel, there was a lack of proper identification. The defendants do contend however that the exhibits just mentioned lack relevancy and materiality. Exhibit No. 7 was made up of paint samples scraped by the sheriff's office from the safe alleged to have been stolen. Exhibits 8 and 9 were samples of grease taken from a floor jack, whereas Exhibit No. 10 was a sample of paint scraped from the same floor jack. Counsel for defendants base their claim of error with reference to the introduction of these exhibits, in large measure, upon the contention that before they can have probative value on the question of identification of defendants and thereby connect them with the breaking and entering charge, the evidence should establish that the articles of clothing designated as State's Exhibits Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6 were worn by the defendants when the crime was committed. They agree, however, if that fact were once established, "then Exhibits Nos. 7 through 10 would have been relevant and material." On this concession by counsel alone, we very well might cease discussion of this claim of error, since the evidence amply supports an inference the exhibits in question represent clothing worn by defendants at the time and scene of the crime. In Underhill's Criminal Evidence, p. 157, § 117, it is stated "the proper method is to prove first that the clothing offered belonged to the accused and that it was worn by him at the time of the tragedy." See, also, 2 Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.), pp. 385-387, §§ 411-412; 2 Wharton's Criminal Evidence (11th Ed.) 192; Commonwealth v. Parrotta, 316 Mass. 307, 55 N.E.2d 456, *331 459. In the text cited, Mr. Wharton states: The doctrine announced in the foregoing text is applied by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in Commonwealth v. Parrotta, supra, as follows: A consideration of the claim of error argued by counsel for defendants under their point one must be denied. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's admitting these exhibits for such weight and consideration as the jury might give them. Finally, it is claimed as a basis for reversal that the trial court erred in denying the motion for a mistrial interposed by defendants during progress of the trial. This claim of error finds expression in the second point presented in their brief-in-chief. It reads: The newspaper article appeared in the evening issue of Clovis News-Journal circulated on the afternoon of the overnight recess. It is as follows: There was no effort on the part of defendants' counsel to show that any member of the jury had read the article appearing in the Clovis News-Journal. Indeed, none had, if the jury observed the admonitions of the court made previously and on the eve of the overnight recess. Furthermore, after denying the motion for mistrial and upon the reconvening of court the following morning, the court instructed the jury touching this matter, as follows: In order to predicate error on the action of the trial court in denying the motion for mistrial, we should have to assume a violation by the jurors, or some of them, of the trial court's admonition given on the eve of the recessing of the court for the night, and that prejudice resulted therefrom. A matter of this kind rests largely within the broad discretion of the trial court. In the text of 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 961, p. 281, the author states: See, also, State v. Bentley Bootery, Inc., 128 N.J.L. 555, 27 A.2d 620; Commonwealth v. Barker, 311 Mass. 82, 40 N.E.2d 265; United States v. Weber, 2 Cir., 197 F.2d 237; United States v. Pinna, 7 Cir., 229 F.2d 216; State v. Fouts, 79 Ohio App. 255, 72 N.E.2d 286. We have carefully considered the errors charged and find no merit in any of them. The defendants received a fair trial and the judgment should be affirmed. It is so ordered. COMPTON, C.J., and LUJAN, McGHEE and KIKER, JJ., concur.