Court Opinion

ID: 9844077
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:57:13.501838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:27.291851
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, Justice (dissenting). For a clearer view of the case, I think more facts should have been stated in the opinion. There was a jewelry box containing numerous items of jewelry, a class ring,, class bracelet, several bracelets, necklaces, and various sets of earrings. These items,, except the jewelry box, were found in the home of appellant and his codefendant, and. were positively identified by Mrs. Scott as-belonging to her and having been taken from her home. On cross-examination, the defendants-propounded the following question to Mrs-Scott: “Q. What do you know about the case that would lead you to believe they (the defendants) are guilty of taking the property or breaking into your house? A. Well, someone told my husband that they did.” While this is hearsay evidence, it was elicited by appellant himself and is part of the record without objection. We have held hearsay evidence to be substantial, as noted in the majority opinion. Not only do we have this evidence, but the further evidence that appellant and his codefendant were found in possession of the stolen property and no attempt to explain such possession was made by appellant. The case of State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 257 P.2d 915, cited by appellee, is ample authority on this question to sustain the judgment. Firmly believing the evidence presented a jury question, I dissent.