State v. Elam

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of receiving stolen property valued in excess of $2,500.-00. Section 40A-16-11, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6). He appeals. We affirm.

Defendant contends: (1) the trial court erred in failing to quash the indictment when it declared § 40A-16-11(B), supra, unconstitutional; that the invalidity of Subsection (B) rendered the entire statute invalid; and (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of knowledge or belief as required by § 40A-16-11(A), supra.(1) The trial court did not err and Subsection (A) was valid.

Defendant raises two…