Court Opinion

ID: 9852167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:25:50.334938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:23.572060
License: Public Domain

HENDLEY, Judge (dissenting). For dissent purposes I assume but do not decide that the rule of State v. Vigil, 85 N.M. 735, 516 P.2d 1118 (1973) is retroactive. Appellate counsel accidently found the Grand Jury transcript. The only discrepancy complained of is Mr. Martinez’ testimony before the Grand Jury and at Trial. Grand Jury Testimony “Q. Did you see a weapon of any kind? “A. Yes, I did. “Q. What did you see? “A. A .38 automatic. “Q. Was this in his hand? “A. It was in his right hand.” (Emphasis ours) Trial Testimony “Q. Could you describe the gun he had? “A. It was — what it looked like to me was a .32 Beretta automatic. “Q. Do you know guns? “A. Well, I just recently got out of the , service.” (Emphasis ours) When viewing the receiving end of a pistol the barrel size may vary. To some it may seem the size of a large open pit. A .38 and a .32 have a different diameter of approximately Vs of an inch. Automatics generally have a similarity in design. The issue at trial was the identity of defendant. Defendant had several alibi witnesses. The state had four eye witnesses. It was undisputed that the robber had a gun. Defendant attempts to elevate the discrepancy, which is at best harmless error, when he states: “The conflict in the testimony of Martinez is clear — and bothersome. It is material. It goes to credibility. It raises a question either about the perceptive capacity of the witness Martinez or his veracity or both. Therefore, it raises a serious question about the reliability of the identity testimony of witness Martinez.” Section 41-23-51, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6, 1972) states that unless “. such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice . . . ” it is harmless error. I would hold the error harmless. State v. Baros, 87 N.M. 49, 529 P.2d 275 (Ct.App.1974); State v. Benavidez, 87 N.M. 223, 531 P.2d 957 (Ct.App.1975); State v. Turner, 90 N.M. 79, 559 P.2d 1206 (Ct.App.1976). Substantial justice was done and defendant received a fair trial. Accordingly, I dissent.