*1 79 partly .of a indicate that the decision-was based the violation results asserted wholly upon erroneous conclusions Fire In- (cid:127)or requirement. Hartford statutory unsupported by speculation evidence. Horne, 338 Co. v. surance clearly merit for contention without (1959). 1067 P.2d opinion a “deci- reason that an not oral record From our examination (a) contemplated by 52(B) Rule sion” connection between find no causal we (a) (52) (B) (1) (2) (3) (4), 21-1-1 Sec. and the collision. negligence acts of claimed N.M.S.A., 1953, error (2) (3) (4), (1) likewise, court, such found no The trial predicated v. thereon. Mirabal cannot be by its indicated connection as is causal Contractor, McKee, E. 74 Robert General the width express finding that neither 455, 457, (1964). 851 N.M. 394 P.2d flags, implement, the absence of farm argued by plaintiffs points hold the perniit, singly or have a or the failure to it follows be merit from which collectively proximate were the was or judgment appealed that the from should cause of collision. affirmed. argue that the Plaintiffs likewise It is so ordered. conclusively that defendant
evidence shows COMPTON, JJ., concur. speed limit exceeding CHAVEZ proximate cause of was a
violation damage. evi resulting
accident speed which conflicting at
dence is pick-up operating his truck
defendant was court The trial at the time of the accident. 456 419 P.2d found that defend the conflict and resolved Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, of New STATE speed the lawful driving ant within and, v. requirements applicable the time CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant. upon substan place. The.finding based Manuel therefore, upon is, binding tial evidence and No. 7817. Inc., Farmers, 7 this court. Dotson Supreme Court New Mexico. (1965); 398 54 Utter N.M. P.2d 24, 1966. Oct. Co., Marsh Sales (1963). finally "assert error based
Plaintiffs
.upon the-trial át the-.con court’s remarks- they claim testimony-which
clusion *2 Gallegos, Fe, E. appellant. Santa for
J.
Witt,
Boston
Atty. Gen.,
E.
-Thomas A.
Donnelly,
Noble,
-Attys.
V.
Asst.
James
Gen.;
Fe,
appellee.
Santa
OPINION
HENSLEY,
E. T.
Jr.,'
Judge,
Chief
Appeals.
Court of
horse,
by
mule,
grand
sheep,
a
o'f
appellant
indicted
The
* * *
ass;
goat, swine,
violating
shall be
jury, charging him with
guilty
felony,
petit
jury
a
deemed
and on convic-
A
returned
N.M.S.A.1953.
competent
tion thereof in
court of
guilty.
verdict of
jurisdiction
punished
shall
im-
appellant
The
contends
prisonment
year
not less than one
nor
N.M.S.A.1953,
Chapter
Laws
years,
more than five
relating
is a
to nar-
statute
Blevins, supra,
In State v.
we held that
appellant
con-
drugs.
cotic
The
further
generai
operative
statute is not
54-5-14, N.M.S.A.1953, being
tends
special
in the
kinds of
described
Chapter
specific
Laws of
is a
that, consequently, the
statute and
marijuana.
ap-
dealing
with
prosecuted
should have been
pellant
have the conviction reversed
35-2405.
because
conclusion reached
Blevins,
367,
the same
possibility
subject
person
the
one
in ities to
to be noted
distinction
first
the
who
Blevins,
punishment than another
greater
of a
State v.
in the case of
this and
would
identical act. This
has
an
committed
supra.
equal protection clauses
do violence
the
“pari materia”
purpose
The
federal constitutions.
of our state and
carry into effect
rule
to ascertain and
say
that
two statutes
nowWe
Dupont et al.
legislatures’ intention.
they
the same act are
condemn
where
42,
al.,
(Del.)
v. Mills et
W.W.Harr.
being
pari
penalty
The
materia.
168,
A.
sarily germane to issue involved Cox, Aragon which we now revise. NOBLE, JJ., concur. CHAVEZ supra we both concluded where *4 MOISE, (dissenting). Justice statutes condemn certain conduct state ' opinion' majority on selecting has a in of the turns choice (cid:127) -54—5-14, employed prosecution proposition that N.M.S.A. for violation. § N.M.S.A.1953,- 1953, 54-7-14, longer no are subscribe to view which and § 145, N1M.S.L.1935,neither márijuana, Ch. cannabis nor- both deal with pari materia and by the included the defi were within pronouncement the last and since 54-7-15, drugs” nition of “narcotic contained in amendment of its was However, 1937, by 2(15) in' N.M.S.A.1953, penalty provision the Act. being of 70, N.M.S.L.1937, 54-7-14, must have the definition supra, it Ch. applicable to § drugs” there to include penalties “narcotic was amended to make the been intended 25, 1953, by this rea- “cannabis.” Ch. controlling. Based on N.M.S.L. provided (cid:127) (compiled N.M.S.Av soning, it is concluded as § sale,; pos 1953), penalties conducted in the instant case was for unlawful drugs delivery agree. session or proper statute. I cannot ^in Again cannabis) increased. cluding were history my mind, and of the To the form changed. penalties were in 1959 and important pertinent sections of the law are considering application and the their my rules'”of It is view en- legislative intent. Both were first statutory considered construction as and 54— acted in Sections 54—5-14 1935. Blevins, 40 N.M. in State v. announced N.M.S.A.1953, 5—15, passed as Ch. were controlling 'In 367, 208, here. are 97, N.M.S.L.1935, the title to which act case, defendant was that' reads: one-neat . and convicted of Possession, Prohibiting Durham, “An Act R. L. property of .cattle Away Sale, same, Giving Barter or of Canna- .the having any right to sell Indica, Known Hashish bis Also contrary provisions of Section 35- Prohibiting Marijuana; Annotated, and Also .the Mexico Statutes New Planting Cultivation of the Same appeal, it -was 1929, Compilation.” On . Providing Penalties Hereof.” prosecuted been defendant had argued that . Sec- wrong of the law. section under the N.M.S.A.1953, was Section , _ 35-1617, supra, under which tion case N.M.S.L.1953, amended in 1953 Ch. felony sell made prosecuted, was it. to. penalty as to increase the for violation so “any property sell offer to knowingly or 54—5-Í5,'supra. of. § owner, of which’he not "the he is which - It right to sell.” given-the has hot been Section hive should' prosecutióri urged that' The' passed-as.§ Ch. N.M.S.L.1935. 35-2405, Comp.Stat.1929, been under Re it was “An (cid:127)title to "the act-stated" Act embezzle, “steal,- felony it a Providing which made Drugs, lating "to Narcotic lead, -ride kill, drive, sell, knowingly Al Act.” (cid:127)Penalties for Violations deprive-the owner manner though 2(14), “cannabis” was defined *5 statute, special one'dealing any of or thé immediate with"the the' of subject swine, horse, mule, sheep, goat, way, common matter in a minute statute, prevail general ass; held 35- will over the un- court appears it the the less in- both condemned 35-1617 ‘ general to make the act act,' in cir- tended control- such and concluded same ling; and this is applicable live- true a fortiori when special the act cumstance time, special point particular in the act is in of al- cattle later generally and neat stock though the rule the only the one under which respective opin- regard passage. the dates of quote prosecuted. I f-romthe could be It is a fundamental rule that -where the ion: statute, alone, general standing if both premise that start the “We with include same matter the the as sp.eciajr A con- offense. the same acts condemn it, special the conflict and thus with pleaded could be under one statute viction exception act be considered an will subsequent against a jeopardy as former statute, passed general whether it was the If statute. the other under general or after before such enactment. correct, it renders this conclusion be later, special it the Where will absolutely premises certain the assumed. to, quali- exception regarded as an one; of, question prior general arises: the the “The then Does fication later, special general in- the in the matter of where the act is have a choice state remaining an itiating prosecutions sale statute will be construed as repealed terms, descrip- exception to its unless it property kind and chattel of the statute, special necessary impli- tion named in the section express words or that it not. 35-2405 ? conclude does cation.’ together lows part of with a and definite In 59 subject sive : terms, C.J. ‘Where subject ‘Statutes,’ and another way, harmonized, there is one statute subject general the two section rule is stated as fol- in more if dealing should be read possible, comprehen- dealing with minute with trol to general, such statutes sale describe “Here, [*] under it. prosecute the extent of but [*] in so far as each special property one [*] offense, special and statutes compelling [*] In other another, statute indicts and, should con- [*] the other the state one of words, [*] they leg- to a consistent giving a view to effect operative general statute is not policy; but to extent 'islative special to the kinds described special them, statute.” necessary between repugnancy n ' -case, supra, legislative intent make In- instant to' 'the controlling his provides shall can be that whoever found simultaneous “have the. posession drug, (cannabis) acts, amendment of though a narcotic the two even ulawfully amendment of placed intent to sell deliver the narcotics act was ” sells, “unlawfully fur in the drug, immediately following statute book nishes, gives away, or delivers amendment *6 drug act. I find “express no or violation of words” “nec ” essary implication” bring punished provided present act is as to about time, quotation result. supra. At from State § § Blevins, supra, v. it stated 54-5-14, supra, pos that this is makes it unlawful “to - requirement sessj cultivate, sell, contrary reach a plant, produce, conclu barter sion. I would direct attention give away any in fol or cannibis [cannabis] lowing cases dica, jurisdictions other also known as hashis [hashish] which the expounded. rule marijuana least, Bulova At insofar States, Watch v. possession Co. give sell United U.S. intent to or 72; away People S.Ct. L.Ed.2d v. giving of cannabis 864, 6 (1964), Cal.App.2d 305, Fiene marijuana, 37 Cal. proscribe the two sections 925; Rptr. City Irving County v. Dallas my opin identical acts. It considered Flood Control (Tex.Civ.App.1964), Dist. ion that insofar sell ing S.W.2d 221. giving away of cannabis mari juana 54-5-14, supra, are offenses under - I agree majority with what is said section is concérning Cox, Aragon v. prevail pro and must over the 407 P.2d but because of their views that visions of the narcotics 54-7-14, supra, under my supra. This inis accord with punishment 54-7-15, supra, were understanding Blevins, supra, State proper, respectfully I dissent. case and I cannot majority’s follow the efforts should be reversed. distinguish recently it. We have reaf firmed rule in Lujan,
111,