Court Opinion

ID: 9628204
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:12:14.168277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:42.134003
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge, (concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the majority opinion result with regard to the inventory search. I do it, however, on the reasoning set forth in State v. Nemrod, 85 N.M. 118, 509 P.2d 885 (Ct.App.1973), which was overruled by a different panel in State v. Vigil, 86 N.M. 388, 524 P.2d 1004 (Ct.App.1974). I concur in the majority opinion with regard to the first statement. I disagree with regard to the second and third statements. There was conflicting evidence with regard to defendant’s intoxication. Although I might have held differently, that is not the appellate review test. The appellate court does not weigh the evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder. State v. Lard, 86 N.M. 71, 519 P.2d 307 (Ct.App.1974). The issue is whether there was substantial evidence. I believe there was substantial evidence to support the finding of mental capacity to understand the rights given and that the answers to questions were voluntary. State v. Arellano, 91 N.M. 195, 572 P.2d 223 (Ct.App.1977).