Case Name: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amado LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Jurisdiction: New Mexico
Decision Date: 1972-11-17
Citations: 84 N.M. 453
Docket Number: No. 976
Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amado LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: HENDLEY, J., concurs.
Reporter: New Mexico Reports
Volume: 84
Pages: 453–454

Head Matter:
504 P.2d 1086
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Amado LOPEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 976.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico.
Nov. 17, 1972.
Certiorari Granted Jan. 3, 1973.
Douglas T. Francis, Francis, Parker Martin & McNeill, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.
David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Randolph Felker, Thomas Patrick Whelan, Jr., Asst. Attys. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.

Opinion:
OPINION
WOOD, Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction of unlawfully taking a vehicle. Section 64-9-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (2nd Repl.Vol. 9, pt. 2). State v. Austin, 80 N.M. 748, 461 P.2d 230 (Ct.App.1969) held that "criminal intent" is an essential element of this offense. State v. Bachicha (Ct.App.), No. 912, 84 N.M. 397, 503 P.2d 1175 decided October 13, 1972, reviewed the instructions given in that case and held they did not cover the element of criminal intent.
The instructions in this case also do not cover the issue of criminal intent. The State concedes this case cannot be distinguished from Bachicha, supra. Instead, the State attacks the reasoning expressed in Austin, and argues that Bachicha was wrongly decided and should be reversed. We approve the reasoning in Austin and the results in both Austin and Bachicha.
The judgment and sentence is reversed because of the trial court's failure to instruct on criminal intent. The cause is remanded with instructions to grant Lopez a new trial.
It is so ordered.
HENDLEY, J., concurs.
SUTIN, J., dissents (dissenting).