State v. Truelock

Aug 15, 1962
7184
Reporters:
,
Before:
Carmody
CARMODY, Justice.

The sole question for our determination is whether a conviction for driving while under ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‍the influence of intoxicating liquor was supported by substantial evidence. We see no necessity in reviewing the evidence upon which the trial court, sitting without a jury, found the defendant ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‍guilty. Let it suffice to say that we deem the evidence substantial to establish defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Naturally, it was contradicted by the testimony of the defendant ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‍and his witnesses, but mere contradiction does not make the State’s evidence any less substantial. See, State v. Sisneros, 1938, 42 N.M. 500, 82 P.2d 274; City of Albuquerque v. Arias, ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‍1958, 64 N.M. 337, 328 P.2d 593; City of Roswell v. Ferguson, 1959, 66 N.M. 152, 343 P.2d 1040, and many other cases which need not be cited.

‘■ The judgment will be affirmed. It ‍‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌​​‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌​‌​‌​​‌​‌‌​​‌‌​​‌‌‌‍is so ordered.

CHAVEZ and MOISE, JJ., concur. ’ CÓMPTON, C. J., and NOBLE, J., not participating.