State v. Griego

Defendant was convicted of embezzling merchandise samples furnished by his employer. The jury determined the value of the merchandise was over $100 but not more than $2500. Sec. 40A-16-7, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6). Defendants claim that the State failed to prove market value, see U.J.I. Crim. 16.01, is frivolous. There is substantial evidence of market value. Defendants claim that the trial court erred in excluding an exhibit is without merit. The trial court excluded the exhibit after the prosecution objected that no foundation had been laid to show the relevancy of the exhibit. Defendant argues the question of relevancy on appeal; however, he made no attempt to demonstrate relevancy to the trial court. The transcript of the trial proceedings does not show the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the exhibit. State v. Bell, 90 N.M. 134, 560 P.2d 925 (1977). The remaining issue involves two instructions of the trial court.