State v. Esquibel

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Esquibel

560 P.2d 181, 90 N.M. 117

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 18, 1977

Docket2650

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 560 P.2d 181 (State v. Esquibel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Esquibel, 560 P.2d 181, 90 N.M. 117 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of possession of marijuana contrary to § 54-11-22(A)(1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2,1962, Supp.1975) defendants appeal. Defendant Kloeppel abandons certain issues raised in the docketing statement because they are not supported by the record. State v. Vogenthaler, 89 N.M. 150, 548 P.2d 112 (Ct.App. 1976). Kloeppel’s point for reversal is the failure of the trial court to grant his motion for a directed verdict. Esquibel raises three issues for reversal: (1) directed verdict; (2) entrapment as a matter of law; and, (3) sufficiency of the evidence to go to the grand jury. We affirm.

Directed Verdicts

Both defendants contend that the legislature has narrowed the meaning of marijuana. Section 54-11-2(0), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, 1962, Supp.1975) sets forth the definition of marijuana as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.” We need not answer this contention. Although, there was conflicting testimony by the experts, there was evidence (all the tests when taken as a whole) from which the jury could determine that the substance was “Cannabis sativa L.” State v. Mora, 81 N.M. 631, 471 P.2d 201 (Ct.App. 1970).

Esquibel also asserts that the statute (§ 54-11-22(A)(2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2, 1962, Supp.1975)) means that when THC was proved marijuana was excluded. Here the legislature separated marijuana (with a lesser penalty) from THC (as extracted from marijuana and more potent) by making its distribution subject to a greater penalty. Section 54-11-22(A)(2), supra.

Entrapment

Esquibel asserts entrapment as a matter of law. A review of the facts fails to disclose entrapment. State v. Fiechter, 89 N.M. 74, 547 P.2d 557 (1976) overruling State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259, 501 P.2d 1247 (Ct.App. 1972).

Sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury

This court will not review the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. State v. McGill, 89 N.M. 631, 556 P.2d 39 (Ct.App. 1976).

Affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of possession of marijuana contrary to § 54-11-22(A)(1), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2,1962, Supp.1975) defendants appeal. Defendant Kloeppel abandons certain issues raised in the docketing statement because they are not supported by the record. State v. Vogenthaler, 89 N.M. 150, 548 P.2d 112 (Ct.App. 1976). Kloeppel’s point for reversal is the failure of the trial court to grant his motion for a directed verdict. Esquibel raises three issues for reversal: (1) directed verdict; (2) entrapment as a matter of law; and, (3) sufficiency of the evidence to go to the grand jury. We affirm.

Directed Verdicts

Both defendants contend that the legislature has narrowed the meaning of marijuana. Section 54-11-2(0), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, 1962, Supp.1975) sets forth the definition of marijuana as “all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L.” We need not answer this contention. Although, there was conflicting testimony by the experts, there was evidence (all the tests when taken as a whole) from which the jury could determine that the substance was “Cannabis sativa L.” State v. Mora, 81 N.M. 631, 471 P.2d 201 (Ct.App. 1970).

Esquibel also asserts that the statute (§ 54-11-22(A)(2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 8, pt. 2, 1962, Supp.1975)) means that when THC was proved marijuana was excluded. Here the legislature separated marijuana (with a lesser penalty) from THC (as extracted from marijuana and more potent) by making its distribution subject to a greater penalty. Section 54-11-22(A)(2), supra.

Entrapment

Esquibel asserts entrapment as a matter of law. A review of the facts fails to disclose entrapment. State v. Fiechter, 89 N.M. 74, 547 P.2d 557 (1976) overruling State v. Sainz, 84 N.M. 259, 501 P.2d 1247 (Ct.App. 1972).

Sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury

This court will not review the sufficiency of the evidence before the grand jury. State v. McGill, 89 N.M. 631, 556 P.2d 39 (Ct.App. 1976).

Affirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

560 P.2d 181, 90 N.M. 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-esquibel-nmctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack