Supreme Court of New Mexico

Decision Information

Decision Content

STATE V. DUNLAP, 1925-NMSC-059, 31 N.M. 275, 242 P. 449 (S. Ct. 1925)

STATE, Appellee,
vs.
Clay DUNLAP et al., Appellants. SAME v. A. S. STEWART,
Appellant. SAME v. Claude WELLS, Appellant. SAME v.
E. A. SHEDOUDY, Appellant. SAME v. Dominic
CUNICO, Appellant. SAME v. Robert L.
BLEDSOE, Appellant. SAME v. J. H.
SINGER, Appellant

Nos. 2968, 2969, 2979, 2983, 2993, 3040, 3041

SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO

1925-NMSC-059, 31 N.M. 275, 242 P. 449

December 14, 1925

In No. 2968, 2969, 2979.

Appeal from District Court, Quay County; Leib, Judge.

In Nos. 2983, 2993.

Appeal from District Court, Colfax County.

In Nos. 3040, 3041.

Appeal from District Court, Curry County.

COUNSEL

O. O. Askren, of Santa Fe, for appellant Dunlap.

Roy Prentice, of Tucumcari, for appellant Stewart.

R. A. Prentice, of Tucumcari, for appellant Wells.

Fred J. Voorhees, of Raton, for appellant Shedoudy.

H. A. Kiker, of Raton, for appellant Cunico.

Fitzhugh & Fitzhugh, of Clovis, for appellants Bledsoe and Singer.

J. W. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., and J. P. Bujac, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

{*276} {1} Each of the defendants in the above entitled causes was convicted under sections 1 and 2, c. 118, Laws of 1923, which, as we have just held in State v. Armstrong, No. 2947, 242 P. 440, not as yet [officially] reported, are violative of section 18, art. 4, of the Constitution of this state. The judgment in each of said causes must therefore be reversed and remanded, with direction to discharge the accused.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.