midpage

State v. LandleeState v. Landlee

New Mexico Court of Appeals
Jul 25, 1973
1188
Reporters:
,
Before:
Wood

OPINION

WOOD, Chief Judge.

The appeal involves the evidence of value in a larceny case. Defendant was convicted of larceny of copper wire with a value in excess ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‍of $100.00 but not more than $2500.00. Section 40A-16-1, N.M.S. A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6). He claims there was no substantial evidence upon which the jury could conclude that the value of the wire was more than $100.00. We disagree.

The copper wire stolen was described as 500 MCM, 250 MCM and scrap. ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‍Considering only the 500 MCM, a witness testified that if it was considered as scrap it was worth $30.00; its replacement cost was $110.00; that its market value was $170.00 to $180.00. Questioned as to whether the amount of 500 MCM stolen was usable, the witness replied that it was usable. This ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‍is substantial evidence of a value in excess of $100.00.

Defendant contends the testimony of this witness was “ . . .so inconsistent as to be inadequate to support the conclusion that the total value of the property allegedly taken was over $100.00. . . . ” We have reviewed this testimony; it is not inconsistent. However, even if ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‍the testimony was inconsistent, such would not require a ruling that the above testimony was not substantial. Conflicts in evidence are to be resolved by the fact finder and this includes conflicts in the testimony of a witness. State v. McKay, 79 N.M. 797, 450 P.2d 435 (Ct.App.1969).

The evidence of value being substantial, the judgment ‍‌​​​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​​​‌​​​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌​​​​‍and sentence is affirmed. See State v. Phillips, 83 N.M. 5, 487 P.2d 915 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Parker, 80 N.M. 551, 458 P.2d 803 (Ct.App.1969).

It is so ordered.

HENDLEY and SUTIN, JJ., concur.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. Landlee
Court Name: New Mexico Court of Appeals
Date Published: Jul 25, 1973
Citations: 513 P.2d 186; 85 N.M. 449; 1188
Docket Number: 1188
Court Abbreviation: N.M. Ct. App.
Log In