Legal Opinion

State v. Gunzelman

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided January 3, 1973No. 968PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

HENDLEY, Judge.

Convicted of burglary contrary to § 40A-16-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (2nd Repl.Vol. 1972), defendant appeals asserting four points for reversal. Defendant’s contention on the failure to instruct on an essential element of the crime is dispositive of the appeal.

We reverse.

The court instructed the jury as follows:

“To constitute criminal intent it is not necessary that there should exist an intent to violate the law or to do a wrong. Criminal intent exists whenever a person intentionally does that which the law declares to be a crime, even though he may not know that he is committing…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. WalshNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. State v. OrtegaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1968
  3. State v. BachichaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1972

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. GunzelmanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973
  2. State v. FuentesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. State v. PugaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
  4. State v. FuentesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
  5. State v. BoyerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API