From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Coffey

Supreme Court of New Mexico
Oct 14, 1930
292 P. 228 (N.M. 1930)

Opinion

No. 3516.

October 14, 1930.

Appeal from District Court, Roosevelt County; Hatch, Judge.

James A. Hall, of Clovis, for appellant.

M.A. Otero, Jr., Atty. Gen., and E.C. Warfel, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Appellant was convicted of possession of intoxicating liquor for sale. The only contention made on this appeal is that the evidence does not support the verdict. Possession is not disputed. The evidence that appellant possessed it for sale is circumstantial, but in our judgment fully as strong as in State v. Chambers, 34 N.M. 208, 279 P. 562. It fully warranted the trial court in submitting the case to the jury and the jury in concluding as it did.

The judgment is affirmed, and the cause will be remanded to the district court for enforcement of it.

It is so ordered.

BICKLEY, C.J., and CATRON, J., concur.

PARKER and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate.


Summaries of

State v. Coffey

Supreme Court of New Mexico
Oct 14, 1930
292 P. 228 (N.M. 1930)
Case details for

State v. Coffey

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. COFFEY

Court:Supreme Court of New Mexico

Date published: Oct 14, 1930

Citations

292 P. 228 (N.M. 1930)
292 P. 228

Citing Cases

State v. Skipworth

The evidence was sufficient to go to the jury. State v. Chambers, 34 N.M. 208, 279 P. 562; State v. Coffey,…

City of Clovis v. Dycus

The evidence, though circumstantial, warranted an inference of guilt by the court. State v. Coffey, 35 N.M.…