Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

87 N.M. 423

State v. Apodaca

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided April 16, 1975

New Mexico Court of Appeals · decided 1975-04-16

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently March 1976

2 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1975-04-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

HERNANDEZ, Judge

¶1(concurring in part, dissenting in part).

¶2I concur with the majority opinion as to “(a) ‘Offen liquor in motor vehicle.’”

¶3I respectfully dissent as to: “(b) ‘Driving while intoxicated’ ”, because in my opinion the words “driving while intoxicated” are commonly understood to mean driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. This is the common name of the offense and also a factual description of what occurred.

¶4As to “(c) ‘License revoked’ and ‘no driver’s license’ ”; these words coupled with the word “driving” also used in the complaint and the citation to “Section 64-13-68, supra”, constitute substantial compliance with § 36-21-21 (a), supra, in my opinion.

¶5As to “ (d) ‘Red light violation’ ”; these words coupled with the citation to “Section 64-16-5, supra”, constitute substantial compliance with § 36-21-21 (a), supra, in my opinion. They are the common name of the offense and a factual description of what occurred.

/87/nm/423 · .json · Public domain