Court Opinion

ID: 9545221
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:08:31.985954+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:19.649847
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part). We concur in Chief Judge Wood’s opinion except for that section entitled “Evidence of Habit.” We reverse the convictions of the two counts of worthless checks and the one count of falsely obtaining services or accommodations. In reversing these counts we also recognize that no actual benefit is received by the defendant since all the sentences are to run concurrently. The contributing conviction, which carries the longer sentence, was not challenged and is accordingly affirmed.  Our difference with Chief Judge Wood is in his application of habit to the facts of this case. McCormick on Evidence, ch. 17, § 195 (2d Ed. 1972) states that habit “. . .is the person’s regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a specific kind of conduct. . . .” See Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 406 of Proposed Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates. We fail to see that the evidence presented proved habit or a routine practice. Even assuming defendant did have the habit of beating his women, it was not established that he beat them so as to coerce them into performing illegal acts. Neither do we see the relevancy or materiality of the evidence other than to show defendant as a “bad guy.” State v. Ross, 88 N.M. 1, 536 P.2d 265 (Ct.App.1975). Thus, the error cannot be considered harmless.  Neither did the evidence establish defendant’s character as being that of a violent person and thereby show his intent to coerce the victim to write the checks as the state asserts. The evidence went only to collateral issues. Compare State v. Mordecai, 83 N.M. 208, 490 P.2d 466 (Ct.App. 1971). Defendant was prejudiced by the evidence. The trial court abused its discretion in allowing the evidence to be introduced. See De La O v. Bimbo’s Restaurant, 89 N.M. 800, 558 P.2d 69 (Ct.App.1976). We reverse the convictions of the two counts of worthless checks and the one count of falsely obtaining services or accommodations. HERNANDEZ, J., concurs.