Title: State v. Ergenbright

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

506 P.2d 1209 (1973) 84 N.M. 662 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George ERGENBRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 9198. Supreme Court of New Mexico. February 23, 1973. *1210 John J. Duhigg, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant. David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Richard A. Griscom, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee. OMAN, Justice. Defendant was convicted of raping a child 22 months of age. He has appealed from the judgment of conviction and his sentence to life imprisonment. We affirm. The points relied upon for reversal will be considered in the order of their presentation in the briefs. The first is: The attack here is not upon the sufficiency of the evidence adduced at trial to support the conviction, but upon the sufficiency of the evidence presented before the grand jury to satisfy it that the offense of rape of a child had been committed. Section 41-5-10, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972) defines the requirements for the return of an indictment by a grand jury. There is no provision in New Mexico law for judicial review of the evidence considered by a grand jury. State v. Chance, 29 N.M. 34, 221 P. 183 (1923); State v. Paul, 82 N.M. 619, 485 P.2d 375 (Ct.App. 1971), cert. denied, 82 N.M. 601, 485 P.2d 357 (1971). See to the same effect, Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 76 S. Ct. 406, 100 L. Ed. 397 (1956). Defendant next contends: The constitutional and statutory provisions relied upon by defendant provide in material part: Rules of Pleading, Practice and Procedure for the Magistrate Courts, Part III, Rules for Criminal Action Rule 25 Appearance of Defendant [§ 36-21-25, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972)]: Rule 26 Preliminary Examinations [§ 36-21-26, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972)]: It is appellant's position that because (1) a criminal complaint against him was executed and apparently filed on December 15, 1969 in magistrate court, (2) he made a request for a preliminary hearing on December 18, 1969, and (3) a preliminary examination was set for January 8, 1970, the indictment issued by the grand jury on December 23, 1969 and filed the following day was invalid and his prosecution and conviction thereunder were likewise invalid. Defendant was not proceeded against by information, but by indictment. Consequently, he was not entitled to a preliminary examination. N.M. Constitution, Art. II, § 14, supra; State v. Salazar, 81 N.M. 512, 469 P.2d 157 (Ct.App. 1970). The fact that proceedings against him were first initiated by a criminal complaint in the magistrate court did not obligate the State to proceed by preliminary examination and information rather than by indictment. See State v. Mosley, 75 N.M. 348, 404 P.2d 304 (1965). In his final point relied upon for reversal, defendant urges: During defendant's closing argument to the jury his counsel stated: In response to this argument, the assistant district attorney stated as follows in his final argument: The following exchange of views then occurred between counsel and the court: Generally, the prosecutor may not properly comment on a defendant's failure to testify. Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609, 85 S. Ct. 1229, 14 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1965); State v. Miller, 76 N.M. 62, 412 P.2d 240 (1966); State v. Jones, 80 N.M. 753, 461 P.2d 235 (Ct.App. 1969). The State does not contend that the possible prejudice caused by the remarks of the assistant district attorney were cured by the trial court's admonition, which is quoted above. See State v. Jones, supra. The State does contend, and we agree, the remarks of the assistant district attorney were made by way of response to the comments of defendant's counsel concerning defendant's reasons for not testifying. These remarks by the assistant district attorney were within the realm of reasonable reply to defendant's argument. Compare United States v. Lawler, 413 F.2d 622 (7th Cir.1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1046, 90 S. Ct. 698, 24 L. Ed. 2d 691 (1970); State v. Bickham, 239 La. 1094, 121 So. 2d 207 (1960); State v. McLarty, 467 S.W.2d 58 (Mo. 1971); State v. Paris, 76 N.M. 291, 414 P.2d 512 (1966); State v. Parks, 25 N.M. 395, 183 P. 433 (1919); Carter v. State, 488 P.2d 1306 (Okl.Cr. 1971); Gaddis v. State, 447 P.2d 42 (Okl.Cr. 1968); Commonwealth v. Darnell, 179 Pa.Super. 461, 116 A.2d 310 (1955); Luna v. State, 461 S.W.2d 600 (Tex.Cr.App. 1970); State v. Gunthorpe, 81 N.M. 515, 469 P.2d 160 (Ct.App. 1970). The judgment and sentence should be affirmed. It is so ordered. McMANUS, C.J., and STEPHENSON, J., concur.