Opinion

State v. McKinley

  • 53 N.M. 106
  • 202 P.2d 964
Court
New Mexico Supreme Court
Filed
Feb 11, 1949
Status
Published
Author
McGHEE
On the bench
Sadler, McGhee, Brice, Lujan, Compton
Cited by
49 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.3%

holding that the purpose of a 7 predecessor CDM statute was “to protect the youth of our state from those evil and 8 designing persons who would lead them astray, and [the appellate courts] are not 9 disposed to in any way impair its usefulness by giving any narrow or strained 10 construction to any of its plain and obvious provisions” (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted)

How later courts described this case

  • holding that the purpose of a 7 predecessor CDM statute was “to protect the youth of our state from those evil and 8 designing persons who would lead them astray, and [the appellate courts] are not 9 disposed to in any way impair its usefulness by giving any narrow or strained 10 construction to any of its plain and obvious provisions” (internal quotation marks and 11 citation omitted)
  • holding that the purpose of a predecessor CDM statute was “to protect the youth of our state from those evil and designing persons who would lead them astray, and [the appellate courts] are not disposed to in any way impair its usefulness by giving any narrow or strained construction to any of its plain and obvious provisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)
  • upholding CDM statute as not being unconstitutionally vague, and noting that the legislature may create offense by defining it as an act which produces a certain result
  • noting that CDM statute had been amended by 1943 N.M. Laws, ch. 36, § 1, deleting language that tied CDM to definition of juvenile delinquency

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

McGHEE, Justice

(dissenting in part).

I agree with the holding that only the district court has jurisdiction to try felony cases, but I am of the opinion that the statute is unconstitutional under the authority of State v. Diamond, 27 N.M. 477 , 202 P. 988 , 20 A.L.R. 1527 ; State v. Armstrong, 31 N.M. 220, 254 , 243 P. 333 ; State v. Prince, 52 N.M. 15 , 189 P.2d 993 ; State v. Truby, 211 La. 178 , 29 So.2d 758 , and State v. Vallery, 212 La. 1095 , 34 So.2d 329 , and therefore dissent.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.