State v. Truelock

New Mexico Supreme Court

State v. Truelock

374 P.2d 141, 70 N.M. 389

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1962

Docket7184

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 374 P.2d 141 (State v. Truelock) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Truelock, 374 P.2d 141, 70 N.M. 389 (N.M. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

CARMODY, Justice.

The sole question for our determination is whether a conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor was supported by substantial evidence. We see no necessity in reviewing the evidence upon which the trial court, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty. Let it suffice to say that we deem the evidence substantial to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Naturally, it was contradicted by the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses, but mere contradiction does not make the State’s evidence any less substantial. See, State v. Sisneros, 1938, 42 N.M. 500, 82 P.2d 274; City of Albuquerque v. Arias, 1958, 64 N.M. 337, 328 P.2d 593; City of Roswell v. Ferguson, 1959, 66 N.M. 152, 343 P.2d 1040, and many other cases which need not be cited.

'■ The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur. ' CÓMPTON, C. J., and NOBLE, J., not participating.

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

CARMODY, Justice.

The sole question for our determination is whether a conviction for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor was supported by substantial evidence. We see no necessity in reviewing the evidence upon which the trial court, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty. Let it suffice to say that we deem the evidence substantial to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Naturally, it was contradicted by the testimony of the defendant and his witnesses, but mere contradiction does not make the State’s evidence any less substantial. See, State v. Sisneros, 1938, 42 N.M. 500, 82 P.2d 274; City of Albuquerque v. Arias, 1958, 64 N.M. 337, 328 P.2d 593; City of Roswell v. Ferguson, 1959, 66 N.M. 152, 343 P.2d 1040, and many other cases which need not be cited.

'■ The judgment will be affirmed. It is so ordered.

CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur. ' CÓMPTON, C. J., and NOBLE, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 P.2d 141, 70 N.M. 389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-truelock-nm-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack