Court Opinion

ID: 9620853
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:48:40.920626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:19.404570
License: Public Domain

On Second Rehearing. PER CURIAM.  This cause coming on to be heard on a second motion for rehearing, Chief Justice LUJAN, Mr. Justice SADLER, Mr. Justice McGHEE and Mr. Justice COMPTON sitting, and the court having considered the briefs of counsel and being well and sufficiently advised in the premises,, presents a division of opinion as follows: Mr. Justice SADLER and Mr. Justice McGHEE remain of the same opinion expressed in their dissent from the original' opinion and think the opinion filed should' be withdrawn and the judgment appealed from reversed; Mr. Chief Justice LUJAN and Mr. Justice COMPTON think the opinion on file should stand as written, thus adhering to the views entertained by them at the time they expressed their concurrence by signing the same. Mr. Justice McGHEE is of opinion that this opportunity should be availed of to overrule Flaska v. State, infra, holding only justices participating at original hearing may participate on rehearing and that Mr,' Justice COORS who became a member of the .Court on January 1, last, should be called in to participate in determining the present motion or, if for any reason he prefers not to participate, that a district judge should be called in to sit in his place. Wherefore, it thus appearing that a majority of the court cannot be secured favoring the withdrawal of the opinion filed (if in fact could be secured from a'full court) and the court being without right under the decision rendered in Flaska v. State, 51 N.M. 13, 177 P.2d 174, to call in another justice or judge not participating in the •original decision, to participate in the consideration of this motion, the opinion heretofore filed, affirming the judgment, will stand. It is so ordered.