Court Opinion

ID: 9588335
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:33:00.308573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:13.703471
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I disagree with the quotation from State v. Atwood, No. 685, N.M.App., 83 N.M. 416, 492 P.2d 1279, decided December 3, 1971, on sequestration of the jury. I specially concur because in this case the separation of jurors after submission of the cause was free of any objection by defendants. The defendants waived their rights. If error could be raised after conviction, no defendant would request sequestration before submission of the cause. It is important in criminal cases to sequester a jury after submission of the cause. The Supreme Court by rule, or the legislature by enactment, should impose this duty on the trial court whether objection to separation is made by defendants or not. Prejudice resulting to defendants- is presumed unless the state makes a showing to the contrary. Defendants also contend the evidence is uncontradicted that defendants did not' participate in. any way in the burglary -and this uncontradicted evidence must be taken as true. "As a general proposition, unimpeached and uncontradicted sworn testimony must be accepted as true.” State v. Chavez, 78 N.M. 446, 432 P.2d 411 (1967). This rule has several exceptions. It loses its effect when facts and circumstances are present, or contradictory inferences arise, which cast some reasonable doubt on the testimony. Samora v. Bradford, 81 N.M. 205, 465 P.2d 88 (Ct.App.1970). The testimony of the defendants and Quinones was positive evidence of innocence, but the facts and circumstances and inferences to be drawn cast some reasonable doubt on the conclusiveness of defendants’ testimony. The issue of innocence became a question of fact for the jury. Perhaps it should be mentioned at this point that it is not wise to avoid the doctrine of circumstantial evidence by ruling that it is not applicable where “there is both circumstantial 'and testimonial evidence,” State v. Hinojos, 78 N.M. 32, 427 P.2d 683 (Ct.App.1967), or where there are “both circumstantial and direct evidence supporting the verdicts” in the majority opinion. See 1 Wigmore on Evidence, §§ 24, 25, 26 (3rd Ed. 1940), and Supplement 1970. In 3 Wharton’s Criminal Evidence, § 980, p. 472 (12th Ed. Anderson 1955), it is stated : As a legal matter, however, there is no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. In my opinion, there was no eyewitness testimony that the defendants made an unauthorized entry into the liquor store with intent to commit any felony or theft therein, or aided and abetted Quinones. The testimonial evidence of the police officer was only circumstantial. But the facts proven by the state from which reasonable inferences could be drawn were sufficient to submit the issue of burglary to the jury, and from which the jury could find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.