State v. Raley

HENDLEY, Judge

(specially concurring).

I concur in the result reached by Judge Sutin. I disagree with the reasoning because of the implication that Rule 21(a), [§ 36-21-21 (a), N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 1972)], must be so narrowly construed. I see no reason why the requirements of the statement cannot be read together in a common sense manner without technicalities.

Rule 21(a) requires that the statement contain the facts, common name and, when applicable, the specific section number. One essential function of a criminal complaint is to give notice of the crime with which the individual is charged. State v. McMath, 34 N.M. 419, 283 P. 51 (1929). Accordingly, had the complaint referred to subsection (A) of § 64 — 22-2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 1972, pt. 2), relating to driving while “under the influence of intoxicating liquor,” I would have no problem in affirming. That subsection of the statute would supplement “D.W.I.” as the common name and would also supply the facts, “driving while intoxicated.” However, since subsection (B) of § 64-22-2, supra, refers to driving while under the influence of any narcotic drug the complaint as worded, without the specific subsection, could relate to either.