State v. Losolla, 500 P.2d 436 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Losolla, 500 P.2d 436 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
84 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State ex rel. Tucumcari Police Department v. One Hundred Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars & No/100 ($104,999.00) (nmctapp, 2000-07-20)
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973 1999 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State ex rel. Tucumcari Police Department v. One Hundred Four Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety-Nine Dollars & No/100 ($104,999.00)
N.M. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See State v. Sung, 2000-NMCA-031, ¶ 10 , 128 N.M. 786 , 999 P.2d 430 (“[0]ur legislature has consistently imposed a territorial limitation on the crime ... likely out of concern that it not exceed the scope of the state’s authority to prosecute acts taking place outside its geographical limits.”); State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 152 , 500 P.2d 436, 437 (Ct.App.1972) (“[T]he law is that a crime must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed.”). {12} In light of the foregoing, we hold that the Department’s failure to produce any evidence that Defendant obtained the sei…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sung
N.M. Ct. App. · 2000 · confidence medium
See State v. Benjamin C., 109 N.M. 67, 69 , 781 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.1989); State, v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 152 , 500 P.2d 436, 437 (Ct. App.1972) (“[T]he law is that a crime must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed.”).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. McCoy
N.M. Ct. App. · 1993 · confidence medium
See State v. Benjamin C., 109 N.M. 67, 69 , 781 P.2d 795, 797 (Ct.App.) (proof of where the defendant lives or is arrested is insufficient to prove offense was committed in the state), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 54 , 781 P.2d 782 (1989); State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 152 , 500 P.2d 436, 437 (Ct.App.1972) (jurisdiction is an essential element of the offense charged).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paradis v. State (2×)
Idaho · 1986 · confidence medium
App. 1974); State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436, 437 (App. 1972); Peterson v. Jacobson, 2 Ariz. App. 593 , 411 P.2d 31, 33 (1966); State v. Clark, 392 P.2d 539, 580 (Wyo. 1964) ("Jurisdiction of the offense charged and of the person of the accused is a fundamental and indispensable prerequisite to a prosecution.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Beard (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 1972-NMCA- 085, ¶ 4, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (“One of the essential elements incumbent upon the [s]tate was to establish where the offense occurred, because the law is that a crime must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed.”).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Benton (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151, 152 , 500 P.2d 436, 437 (Ct.App.1972) (when conviction is reversed for failure of proof, appropriate remedy is discharge).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Muniz (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (Ct.App.1972).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Santillanes (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (Ct.App.1972) (if evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, cause is remanded with instructions to release defendant).
discussed Cited "see" State v. BENJAMIN C. (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (Ct.App.1972).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Sorenson (2×)
Utah Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436, 437 (Ct.App.1972) (where state failed to establish offense occurred in state, case was remanded with instructions to discharge the defendant).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Shade (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (Ct.App.1972).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Doe (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (Ct.App.1972).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Martinez (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 2019 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare State v. Fierro, 2014-NMCA-004, ¶ 31 , 315 P.3d 319 (affirming the defendant’s conviction because evidence was sufficient to establish the offense occurred in New Mexico), with State v. Losolla, 1972-NMCA-085 , ¶ 4, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (reversing the defendant’s conviction where the state failed to prove the offense charged was committed in New Mexico).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Cochran (2×)
Idaho · 1975 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also People v. Bormann, 6 Cal.App.3d 292 , 85 Cal.Rptr. 638 (1970). 6 .See State v. Losolla, 84 N.M. 151 , 500 P.2d 436 (1972); and eases cited within 21 Am.
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Orlando LOSOLLA, Defendant-Appellant
836.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Jun 23, 1972.
500 P.2d 436
Philip W. Steere, Las Cruces, for defendant-appellant., David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Prentis Reid Griffith, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee.
Hernandez, Hendley, Cowan.
Cited by 40 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

HERNANDEZ, Judge.

Defendant, Orlando Losolla, was tried and convicted of violating § 54 — 7-51, N. M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2) unlawful use of a narcotic drug. He appeals. The issues: (1) lack of advice of rights; and (2) sufficiency of the evidence.

The second issue being dispositive of the appeal, we need not consider the first.

The Information under which defendant was tried, charged “That on or about February 22, 1971, in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, Orlando Losolla and Reymundo Losolla, unlawfully used a narcotic drug', to-wit: Heroin, in violation of Section 54 — 7-51, NMSA1953 Compilation.” Reymundo Losolla was tried separately. At the close of the State’s case defendant made a “ * * * motion to dismiss based upon the fact that the State has failed to prove jurisdiction of this case. The State has produced no evidence that at the time of the alleged offense the defendant was even in the State of New Mexico. * * * ” The motion was denied. It was error to do so. Even though this matter was not' brought up or argued on appeal, we will sua sponte raise it for consideration because it is jurisdictional. State v. Clemons, 83 N.M. 674, 496 P.2d 167 (Ct.App.1972); State v. McNeece, 82 N.M. 345, 481 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1971).

The record does not establish where the defendant used the narcotic drug. To justify a conviction the evidence must establish every essential element of the offense charged. State v. Taylor, 14 Utah 2d 107, 378 P.2d 352 (1963); and whatever is essential must affirmatively appear from the record. Guthrie v. Commonwealth, 212 Va. 602, 186 S.E.2d 68 (1972). One of the essential elements incumbent upon the State was to establish where the offense occurred, because the law is that a crime must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction where it was committed. State v. Faggard, 25 N.M. 76, 177 P. 748 (1918).

We rcvci'se, and because it is for a failure of proof, rather than error in the trial proceedings, the cause is remanded with instructions to discharge the defendant. State v. Malouff, 81 N.M. 619, 471 P.2d 189 (Ct.App.1970).

It is so ordered.

HENDLEY and COWAN, JJ., concur.