State v. Williams

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Williams

493 P.2d 962, 83 N.M. 477

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 21, 1972

Docket747

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 493 P.2d 962 (State v. Williams) 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. Williams, 493 P.2d 962, 83 N.M. 477 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, a television set, when the value was more than $100.00 but less than $2,500.00 contrary to § 40A-16-11, N.M.S. A.1953 (Supp.1971), defendant appeals. Defendant asserts two points for reversal. We affirm.

Defendant first contends that the motel manager was not qualified to testify regarding the value of the television set and his motion to dismiss at the close of defendant’s case should have been granted. The motel manager testified that he was familiar with the value of the television sets that are sold to motels and testified that a used set like the one involved was worth between $150.00 and $200.00. We see no reason to distinguish between the opinion evidence of a manager who is familiar with cost and the opinion evidence of an owner. See State v. Zarafonetis, 81 N.M. 674, 472 P.2d 388 (Ct.App.1970). The testimony of the manager was competent and meets the substantial evidence test. State v. Zarafonetis, supra.

Defendant next contends and he so testified at trial, that the police told him “it might go easier” if he would admit he knew the television set was stolen. Defendant argues his admission of guilt was obtained through deception and should have been excluded. This matter requiring determination on evidence is first raised on appeal and was never raised nor ruled on by the trial court. This cannot be done. State v. Colvin, 82 N.M. 287, 480 P.2d 401 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Martinez, 52 N.M. 343, 198 P.2d 256 (1948).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and SUTIN, J., concur. COWAN, J., not participating.

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

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of receiving and concealing stolen property, a television set, when the value was more than $100.00 but less than $2,500.00 contrary to § 40A-16-11, N.M.S. A.1953 (Supp.1971), defendant appeals. Defendant asserts two points for reversal. We affirm.

Defendant first contends that the motel manager was not qualified to testify regarding the value of the television set and his motion to dismiss at the close of defendant’s case should have been granted. The motel manager testified that he was familiar with the value of the television sets that are sold to motels and testified that a used set like the one involved was worth between $150.00 and $200.00. We see no reason to distinguish between the opinion evidence of a manager who is familiar with cost and the opinion evidence of an owner. See State v. Zarafonetis, 81 N.M. 674, 472 P.2d 388 (Ct.App.1970). The testimony of the manager was competent and meets the substantial evidence test. State v. Zarafonetis, supra.

Defendant next contends and he so testified at trial, that the police told him “it might go easier” if he would admit he knew the television set was stolen. Defendant argues his admission of guilt was obtained through deception and should have been excluded. This matter requiring determination on evidence is first raised on appeal and was never raised nor ruled on by the trial court. This cannot be done. State v. Colvin, 82 N.M. 287, 480 P.2d 401 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Martinez, 52 N.M. 343, 198 P.2d 256 (1948).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and SUTIN, J., concur. COWAN, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 P.2d 962, 83 N.M. 477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-nmctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack