Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
City of Roswell v. Gallegos
Citations: 420 P.2d 438; 77 N.M. 170Docket: 8013
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court; November 21, 1966; New Mexico; State Supreme Court
The appellant, Robert Lucero Gallegos, was convicted in municipal court for the illegal sale of alcoholic liquor, a violation of local ordinance, and subsequently appealed to the district court, which upheld the conviction. The case was appealed again to the Supreme Court of New Mexico. During the trial, testimony was provided by a city policeman and the defendant. The appellant argued three points for reversal: 1. The introduction of evidence (specifically a brown paper bag containing vodka and beer) was improperly predicated, but it was determined that sufficient evidence existed to support the conviction based on the policeman’s testimony and the stipulation regarding the defendant’s lack of a liquor sale license. The court found no error in the trial judge’s examination of witnesses or the admission of the exhibit. 2. The appellant contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. After reviewing the record, the court agreed with the trial court's evaluation of the evidence. 3. The appellant asserted that the prosecution failed to establish that the crime occurred within the corporate limits of Roswell, which is necessary for jurisdiction. Although the appellant was correct, the court noted that he waived this right by not raising a timely objection during the trial. The court found no reversible error and affirmed the judgment. Justice Noble concurs with the majority but highlights that merely waiving the venue objection does not fully address the issue of whether the prosecution proved the offense occurred within the City of Roswell. Venue is defined as the geographic location for prosecution, which can be forfeited if not timely asserted. In cases involving state statutes, venue refers to the legally designated county for prosecution, while for municipal ordinances, the acts must occur within municipal boundaries to constitute a violation. Consequently, proof of guilt hinges on establishing that the actions took place within corporate limits. However, any claim regarding insufficient evidence to support the verdict cannot be raised on appeal unless it was previously presented to the trial court. Justice Noble agrees with affirming the judgment.