# State v. Sisneros

> New Mexico Supreme Court · August 8, 1938 · 42 N.M. 500

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3571079

## Case

- **Full name:** State v. Sisneros.
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 8, 1938
- **Citations:** 42 N.M. 500; 82 P.2d 274
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zinn
- **Judges:** Brice, Hudspeth, Zinn, Sadler, Bickley
- **Cited by:** 69 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3571079

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting, in a case involving reckless driving and driving under the influence, “[a] conviction of one would not be a bar to a prosecution for committing the other offense[,]” and that “[w]hile the evidence of intoxication might bear upon the question of whether the defendant wa…
- discussing the precursor to 13 the current vehicular homicide statute and stating, “If the defendant killed [victim] 14 while committing the unlawful act of driving an automobile while under the influence 15 of intoxicating liquor, he is not guilty of manslaughter unless the c…
- holding involuntary manslaughter in the context of a car accident requires “the conduct of the driver of the [vehicle to be] so reckless, wanton, and willful as to show an utter disregard for the safety of pedestrians”
- holding that the defendant was not guilty of manslaughter unless the commission of the unlawful act was the proximate cause of the death of the victim

## Opinion text

ZINN, Justice
(specially concurring).
My primary reason for concurring in the majority opinion is based on my deep-grounded belief in the theory enunciated by us in our opinion in the case of State v. Harris, 41 N.M. 426, 427 , 70 P.2d 757 , wherein we laid down a definite rule by which the guilt or the innocence of a driver of an automobile, who accidentally kills a person is to be measured.
Mere negligence is not sufficient. It may be sufficient to compel the driver to respond in damages. However, when it comes to responding to' an accusation of involuntary manslaughter, with the possibility of a penitentiary sentence, a different rule is called into play.
In the instant case I can not find from the evidence where the appellant was guilty of reckless, wanton and wilful negligence. State v. Harris, supra.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3571079. Public record. Not legal advice.