Edward M. Deaton was convicted by a jury of Quay County of conspiracy to commit armed robbery contrary to § 40-11-1, N.M.S.A., 1953, and sentenced to a term in the state penitentiary. From the judgment imposing sentence he appeals. The section reads:
“Any рerson or persons who shall knowingly combine with any other person or persons for the purpose of committing a fеlony, within or without this state; or any person or persons who shall knowingly unite with any other person or persons, body, associаtion or combination of persons, whose object is the commission of a felony or felonies, within or without this state, shall, on conviction, be fined not less than twenty-five dollars [$25.00], nor more than five thousand dollars [$5,-000], or imprisoned in the state prison not lеss than one [1] year nor more than fourteen [14] years, or both in the discretion of the court.”
The questions presented here are (a) the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and (b) whether there was prejudicial error in permitting the state, after both sides had rested, to reopen the case for the purpose of recalling the appellant for further examination with respect to a prior conviction.
The appellant resided in Tucumcari, New Mexico. About midnight on July 11, 1962, at a roadside park, his brother-in-law, Joe Vigil, introduced him to Donald Irvin and Russell Hults who, together with two girls, were en route from Chicago to California, but had arrived that day in Tucumcari without funds. Appellant invited Irvin, Hults, one of the girls and Joe Vigil to his hоuse where they ate, drank and spent the night. The following day appellant furnished Irvin and Hults with liquor and rented a motel room for them and the girls. That evening, on two separate occasions, and using his own vehicle, he drove Irvin and Hults to the rear of a bоwling alley a short distance from a liquor store and bar known as Alex’s Lounge, let them out and then returned home alone. On the sеcond occasion Irvin and Hults, using a sawed-off shotgun and blackjack robbed the owner of Alex’s Lounge of about $40.00. Immediatеly thereafter Irvin and Hults returned to the appellant’s home after which all three proceeded to the motel rоom, previously rented by appellant, where the money was being divided when the police drove up and the parties were apprehended and placed under arrest. Before a division of the money was completed, however, they were apprehended and placed under arrest.
The testimony of Irvin and Hults, who were brought from the state penitentiary where they were serving sentences for the armed robbery, was to the effect that on the first night at the appеllant’s house appellant knew that Irvin and Hults had in their possession a shotgun and blackjack; that there were conversations about robbery during which the appellant told Irvin and Hults about Alex’s Lounge and that it should have about one or two hundred dollars in the cash register; that on the following day Irvin and Hults told appellant that they had decided to rob Alex’s Lounge. However, thеre was no direct evidence that appellant knew on either occasion when he drove them to the reаr of the bowling alley that Irvin and Hults had the gun and blackjack on their persons or that they intended to rob Alex’s Lounge.
The gist of cоnspiracy under the statute is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a felony. But it is not necessary in order to establish a conspiracy to prove a formal agreement to accomplish the illegal aсt. The crime of conspiracy is rarely susceptible of proof by direct evidence. Nevertheless, it can be еstablished by circumstantial evidence. Territory v. Leslie,
While common design is the essence of a conspiracy, this faсt may be established by evidence other than that the parties came together and actually agreed upon a method of operation for the accomplishment of the offense. Medina v. People, Colo.1963,
Viewing the evidence, as we must, in its most favorable aspect in support of the. verdict, State v. Romero,
The appellant’s final point charges prejudicial error by the court in permitting the case to be reoрened, after both sides had rested, for the purpose of allowing the state to further examine the appellant rеgarding a prior conviction. The-prejudice asserted by the appellant is the isolation and emphasizing of repetitious testimony. While testifying in his own behalf,, on direct examination, appellant voluntarily testified that he had previously been convicted of a felony. He stated the prior conviction had been for the giving of “hot checks.” The case wаs reopened by the-court solely to permit the state to identify the offense concerning which appellant had previously testified, that is, forgery rather than “hot checks.” We fail to see any prejudice in this respect. A trial judge has а broad discretion in the matter of reopening a case to permit the taking.of additional testimony on behalf of either party. State v. Caro,
Finding no error, the judgment of the court below is affirmed. It is so ordered.