State v. Lucero

10 Citing cases

  1. State v. Ancira

    2022 NMCA 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 3 times

    {ยถ11} The State contends here that there was no new charge added, that instead it merely corrected a typographical error in the address where the trespass occurred. The State relies on State v. Lucero, 1968-NMCA-021, ยถยถ 6-7, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806, where a change in the address given was held to be the correction of an error that did not prejudice the defendant, and was therefore permissible. We are not persuaded.

  2. In the Matter of Garrison P

    132 N.M. 626 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 3 times
    Discussing criminal charges

    First, subsection F addresses minor technical amendments to a petition, not major substantive amendments like the addition of different criminal charges. The committee commentary on this subsection states that it is patterned after Rule 5-204 NMRA 2002 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts. Under Rule 5-204(C), amendments to correct mistakes have been granted in adult cases to correct the date of the offense, see State v. Marquez, 1998-NMCA-010, ยถ 21, 124 N.M. 409, 951 P.2d 1070; typographical errors, see State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 133, 440 P.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App. 1968); and to correct the name of the victim, see State v. Martinez, 34 N.M. 112, 119, 278 P. 210, 213 (1929). These are generally considered "amendments to" a charging document that is otherwise adequate.

  3. State v. McCoy

    116 N.M. 491 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that random drug testing as a condition of probation is reasonably related to deterring future criminal conduct

    See SCRA 1986, 5-205(A)(3) (Repl. 1992) (means by which offense was committed is generally an unnecessary allegation); State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 132, 440 P.2d 806, 807 (Ct.App. 1968) (unnecessary allegation may be disregarded as surplusage). Accordingly, we believe the criminal informations in these cases charge valid crimes under the laws of this state.

  4. State v. Johnson

    105 N.M. 63 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 18 times
    Stating that " variance is not fatal unless the accused cannot reasonably anticipate from the indictment what the nature of the proof against him will be"

    We agree. See State v. Trujillo, 91 N.M. 641, 578 P.2d 342 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 751, 580 P.2d 972 (1978); State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1968). Defendant does not contend that he was misled into thinking that other vehicles were involved, nor does defendant argue that the preparation of his case or the conduct of his defense at trial was prejudiced by the variance.

  5. State v. Vialpando

    93 N.M. 289 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 50 times
    Holding that unsolicited, improper comment did not warrant mistrial

    Defendant has not "affirmatively shown that the defendant was in fact prejudiced . . . in his defense upon the merits." State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 133, 440 P.2d 806, 808 (Ct.App. 1968). Moreover, there was substantial evidence of sexual intercourse caused by force and coercion used upon the Sister, resulting in injuries sufficient to require her hospitalization for approximately ten days immediately afterward; there was also substantial evidence to support the guilty verdicts on Counts I, II, and III.

  6. State v. Trujillo

    91 N.M. 641 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978)   Cited 12 times
    In New Mexico v. Trujillo, 1978-NMCA-041, 91 N.M. 641, 578 P.2d 342, the court explained that "'[u]se' means, among other things, 'to carry out a purpose or action by means of,' to 'make instrumental to an end or process,' and to "apply to advantage.

    Such did not provide a basis for dismissal. Rule of Crim.Proc. 7(a); see State v. Covens, 83 N.M. 175, 489 P.2d 888 (Ct.App. 1971); State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1968). Motions to Suppress

  7. State v. Vigil

    85 N.M. 328 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973)   Cited 31 times
    Holding "requirements for a voluntary guilty plea . . . must affirmatively appear in the record"

    The information being sufficient under ยง 41-6-7, supra, the asserted insufficiency of additional allegations need not be discussed. Section 41-6-36, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6); State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1968); see also State v. Turner, 81 N.M. 450, 468 P.2d 421 (Ct.App. 1970). The foregoing does not dispose of this issue.

  8. State v. Turner

    81 N.M. 450 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 12 times

    In our opinion, Count I of the initial indictment and Count II of the amended indictment are clearly sufficient under the statute which we have quoted. See State v. Campos, 79 N.M. 611, 447 P.2d 20 (1968); State v. Jones, 73 N.M. 459, 389 P.2d 398 (1964); State v. Lott, 73 N.M. 280, 387 P.2d 855 (1963); State v. Cummings, 63 N.M. 337, 319 P.2d 946 (1957); State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1968). In State v. Lott, supra, the Supreme Court considering the effect of this statute, said:

  9. State v. Walsh

    81 N.M. 65 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 23 times

    Secondly, it is well established in this jurisdiction that an indictment is valid and sufficient if it identifies the crime charged by reference to the statute establishing the offense. State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1968); Village of Deming v. Marquez, 74 N.M. 747, 398 P.2d 266 (1965); State v. Lott, 73 N.M. 280, 387 P.2d 855 (1963). THE INSTRUCTIONS.

  10. State v. Parker

    80 N.M. 551 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 25 times

    We also find no merit to his contention that he was prejudiced by the amendment as claimed under his fifth point. Compare State v. Peke, 70 N.M. 108, 371 P.2d 226 (1962); State v. Lucero, 79 N.M. 131, 440 P.2d 806 (Ct.App. 1968). Under Points VI and VII, defendant claims error on the part of the trial court in failing to give his requested instructions numbers 5 and 6, which were as follows: