*1 '522 Harvey Lovington, 184 Markley, for de-
494 P.2d C. fendant-appellant. Plaintiff-Appellee, Mexico, of STATE New Gen., Norvell, Atty. H. David L. v. James Russell, Gen., Fe, Atty. for LEE, Defendant-Appellant. Asst. Santa Don Aaron plaintiff-appellee. No. 743. Appeals of of Court New Mexico. OPINION 4, Feb. 1972. COWAN, Judge. judgment and appeals from a
Defendant
in Lea
following
conviction
his
sentence
Mexico,
of bur-
County,
the crime
New
of
N.M.S.A.,
40A-16-3,
contrary
glary
to §
taking
the
6), and
crime of
(Repl.Vol.
1953
owner,
of the
vehicle without the consent
a
contrary
64-9-4(a),
to
N.M.S.A.1953
§
9, pt.
(Repl.Vol.
2).
affirm.
We
by
de
raised
the
issues
The two
insufficiency
the evidence
of
are
fendant
criminal
charges
proof
and
of
as
both
to
theft.
of auto
charge
intent as to the
in
light
the
most favorable
in
Viewed
conviction, the
support
the
of
of
verdicts
5,
February
night of
During the
are:
facts
Levy Auto
1971,
belonging to
building
a
key to
A
burglarized.
in Hobbs was
Sales
the car
taken and
was
a
white Ford
1964
adjoin-
from an
removed
subsequently
was
afternoon,
following
Early
ing
in the
lot.
vehicle
manager
the
observed
the
lot
car
it to
followed
past the lot and
being driven
police
the
There
nearby filling station.
a
n placed the defendant
His
arrest.
under
time
that
him at
taken from
were
shoes
by
comparison,
prints for
make
and used to
footprint
beside
found
with a
photograph,
entry
the
through
into
which
the window
photographs
The
building
effected.
was
similarities, including size
several
reflected
introduced
They
markings.
were
and heel
consideration.
jury’s
for the
in evidence
acquaint-
an
testified that
defendant
The
to
vehicle
him the
loaned
in a bar had
ance
de-
up
pick
the
to
transportation
'use for
acquaintance
This
paycheck.
fendant’s
prior to trial.
not be located
could
dominion, con-
admitted
defendant
The
but
the automobile
of
possession
trol and
stolen.
had been
know it
did not
claimed he
*2
523
HENDLEY,
sufficiency
J.,
of the
concurs.
question
The
of
by the
in
case is controlled
evidence
this
SUTIN, Judge (concurring
part
in
and
Kennedy,
opinion
court in
v.
of
State
this
dissenting in part).
152,
(Ct.App.1969),
452
486
80 N.M.
P.2d
in
where a stolen
set was found
television
conviction,
I
in
burglary
concur
the
but
plaster
the
cast of
defendant’s home and a
violation,
dissent from the conviction of
of
imprint
at
of the
a foot
made
the scene
9-4(a)
my
for the reasons
in
stated
§ 64—
crime
those on
showed marks similar to
opinion
Sanchez,
in
dissenting
82
State v.
boots
in
home. The
found
defendant’s
585,
(Ct.App. 1971).
N.M.
stances alone relied the are
cution, the must such as circumstances be defendant, apply exclusively
to and such to hypothe are
as reconcilable with no other However, guilt. than
sis
a
defendant’s
verdict,
guilty
supported by substantial evi
of that such evidence was insufficient support
to jury the It verdict. was for the weigh pass
to the the evidence and on
credibility of the witnesses. State v. Lind 173,
sey, 81 N.M. (Ct.App. 464 903 P.2d
1969). question
The of intent is deter Hinojos, by
mined rule the in v. State 78 32, (Ct.App.1967),
N.M.
evidence control or property
of stolen on is the admissible
question of intent. See also State v. Aus
tin, 748, (Ct.App. 80 N.M. 461 230 P.2d 707,
1969), Ortega, and State v. 79 N.M. (Ct.App. 1968).
448 813 From P.2d the presented, together
evidence with the rea therefrom,
sonable inferences flow the that
jury requisite the criminal in could find
tent. judgment is
The and sentence affirmed.
It is so ordered.