Court Opinion

ID: 9533191
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:29:20.355289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:56.545141
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (dissenting in part). Although I agree with the result reached by the majority with regard to the affirmance of the conviction of larceny and their discussion relating to the value of the stolen property, I cannot agree with their reversal of the burglary conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State we have the following which relates to and gives rise to an inference of participation by defendant in the burglary. That evidence is: an admission by defendant of his presence at the scene of the burglary; his change of position from the backseat to the frontseat in the automobile; the possession of jewelry in his pocket when jewelry was taken in the crime although the jewelry is not identified as the jewelry taken; and the suspicious circumstances of attempting to divest himself of possession of the jewelry by dropping it on the ground at the time of the arrest. The fact that defendant testified he was asleep because of too much liquor at the time of the burglary was a question of credibility for the jury. The fact of conviction meant they disbelieved the defendant. This disbelief could have been helped by the arresting officer’s testimony that he smelled no alcohol at the time of the arrest. From the foregoing facts, I believe we have something more than did the Supreme Court in State v. Salazar, 78 N.M. 329, 431 P.2d 62 (1967) wherein it was stated that mere presence without some outward manifestation of approval was insufficient. Here, from the totality of the circumstances I fail to see how we can state as a matter of law that the defendant did not participate in the burglary. I believe we have circumstances that show an outward manifestation of approval of the burglary. I respectfully dissent.