State v. Leyba, 600 P.2d 312 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Leyba, 600 P.2d 312 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
26 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: RICHARDSON
Treatment trajectory · 1982 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1982 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) RICHARDSON
unknown court · 2010 · confidence medium
Ct. App. 1994) (finding that in New Mexico, an agreement is the gist of the crime of conspiracy and stating that “‘an overt act is not 228 Cite as 25 I&N Dec. 226 (BIA 2010) Interim Decision #3678 required [and] the crime is complete when the felonious agreement is reached’” (quoting State v. Leyba, 600 P.2d 312, 313 (N.M.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ramirez
N.M. Ct. App. · 2008 · confidence medium
In Leyba, this Court held that conspiracy charges did not arise out of the same transaction as the shoplifting charge because “conspiracy is an initiatory crime, and it is a separate common design or mutually implied understanding between two or more persons to accomplish a criminal act at some time subsequent to reaching the common design or mutual understanding to do so.” Id. at 367 , 600 P.2d at 313 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Martinez (2×)
N.M. Ct. App. · 2007 · confidence medium
See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 62 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 ; State v. Leyba, 93 N.M. 366, 367 , 600 P.2d 312, 313 (Ct.App.1979) (stating that the crime of conspiracy is complete when the prohibited agreement is reached; it does not require the completion of the act that is the object of the conspiracy).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Baca
N.M. · 1997 · confidence medium
“An agreement is the gist of the crime____” State v. Padilla, 1994 NMCA 070, 118 N.M. 189, 193 , 879 P.2d 1208, 1212 . “[T]he crime is complete when the felonious agreement is reached.” Id. (quoting State v. Leyba, 93 N.M. 366, 367 , 600 P.2d 312, 313 (Ct.App.1979)).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Villalobos
N.M. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
State v. Jacobs, 102 N.M. 801, 805 , 701 P.2d 400, 404 (Ct.App.1985); State v. Leyba, 93 N.M. 366, 367 , 600 P.2d 312, 313 (Ct.App.1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Padilla (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.M. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
An agreement is the gist of the crime of conspiracy; “an overt act is not required, [and] the crime is complete when the felonious agreement is reached.” State v. Leyba, 93 N.M. 366, 367 , 600 P.2d 312, 313 (Ct.App. 1979).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Algie King
10th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Although the crime forming the basis of the conspiracy must be explained to the jury, New Mexico law is clear that “[t]he overt act which constitutes the object of the conspiracy is no part of the crime of conspiracy; indeed, an overt act is not required, but the crime is complete when the felonious agreement is reached.” State v. Leyba, 93 N.M. 366, 367 , 600 P.2d 312, 313 (1979); see also State v. Jacobs, 102 N.M. 801, 805 , 701 P.2d 400, 404 (1985) (“It makes no difference to the conspiracy charge whether an aggravated burglary was proved or whether that charge was dismissed.
discussed Cited "see" State v. Ramirez (2×)
N.M. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. (“ ‘The crime [of conspiracy] is 6 complete when the felonious agreement is reached.’ ” (quoting State v. Leyba, 1979- 7 NMCA-105, ¶ 2, 93 N.M. 366 , 600 P.2d 312 )). 8 {36} We therefore decline to extend Silvas to the facts of this case.
STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Connie LEYBA and Veronica Carrillo, Defendants-Appellees
4097.
New Mexico Court of Appeals.
Aug 23, 1979.
600 P.2d 312
Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Michael E. Sanchez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant., Mary Jo Snyder, Santa Fe, for defendants-appellees.
Walters, Hendley, Andrews.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

OPINION

WALTERS, Judge.

Defendants were indicted by the grand jury for shoplifting in violation of § 30-16-20, and for conspiracy, in violation of § 30-28-2, N.M.S.A.1978. The trial court dismissed the charge of conspiracy on the ground that § 30-16-20 C expressly prohibits charging a separate or additional offense if it arises out of the same transaction upon which the shoplifting charge is based. The State contends the trial court misconstrued § 30-16-20 C, because it logically refers to additional similar charges such as larceny, and that the second charge should be reinstated.

The parties to this appeal are in error in agreeing that the charge of conspiracy “arises out of the same transaction” which resulted in the indictment for shoplifting. It is true that proof of the subsequent shoplifting may also tend to circumstantially prove the conspiracy charge, State v. Thoreen, 91 N.M. 624, 578 P.2d 325 (Ct.App.1978); see, People v. Edwards, 74 Ill.App.2d 225, 219 N.E.2d 382 (1966); but conspiracy is an initiatory crime, and it is a separate “common design or mutually implied understanding” between two or more persons to accomplish a criminal act at some time subsequent to reaching the common design or mutual understanding to do so. See State v. Armijo, 90 N.M. 10, 558 P.2d 1149 (Ct.App.1976); 16 Am.Jur.2d 131, Conspiracy, § 7. The overt act which constitutes the object of the conspiracy is no part of the crime of conspiracy; indeed, an overt act is not required, but the crime is complete when the felonious agreement is reached. State v. Davis, 92 N.M. 341, 587 P.2d 1352 (Ct.App.1978).

The alleged conspiracy did not arise from the same transaction as led to the charge of shoplifting, see State v. Armijo, 90 N.M. 12, 558 P.2d 1151 (Ct.App.1976); thus, the second count of the indictment should not have been dismissed on that ground.

The decision of the trial court is reversed with directions to reinstate the charge of conspiracy against defendants and to proceed accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HENDLEY and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.