Legal Opinion
State v. Tooke
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided May 28, 1970No. 452PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HENDLEY, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of attempted forgery. Sections 40A-16-9 and 40A-28-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 6). He appeals giving two grounds for reversal. We affirm.
1. “THERE CAN BE NO CONVICTION OF ATTEMPTED FORGERY IF THE SUBSTANTIVE CRIME IS COMPLETE.”
The applicable portion of the' forgery statute, § 40A-16-9, supra, is subsection B, which defines forgery as “ *■ * * knowingly issuing or transferring a forged writing with intent to injure or defraud. * * *” Defendant was convicted of an attempt to violate this subsection. His contention is that this subsection covers an…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ditto v. Ditto Investment CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1958
- Boddie v. StateCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1969
- State v. LopezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. BuchananNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1967
- Ditto Investment Company v. DittoCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1957
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
- State v. RuffinsNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1990
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
- State v. BrewsterNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
- State v. LiberoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.