ALAMOGORDO, N.M. (AP) - A bank robber has lost his bid to overturn his conviction by arguing the stupidity of the crime proved he was too drunk to be responsible.
Raymond Hernandez's robbery conviction stemmed from a September 2000 Tularosa bank heist.
Hernandez, 57, argued in his failed appeal that trying to rob the same teller who, moments earlier, had refused to cash his check was stupid enough to show he was inebriated.
Witnesses said they saw Hernandez leaving the area with the money when an anti-robbery dye pack exploded, scattering some of the bills, District Attorney Scot Key said. A total of $2,717 was taken.
Hernandez cited the fact that state District Judge James Counts, who had presided over the robbery trial, did not instruct jurors that drunkenness can sometimes be a defense. Counts said Hernandez presented no evidence of drunkenness.
Hernandez also argued on appeal that there was no robbery since he made no threat.
To an additional charge of disposing of property, Hernandez argued that money is not property, so he couldn't have been disposing of it.
However, Court of Appeals Judge Cynthia Fry's written opinion said Hernandez provided no evidence that foolish acts necessarily result from drunkenness. She also wrote that state law defines property as anything of value, so money qualifies; and that Hernandez did commit the September 2000 robbery.
The state Supreme Court let the lower court rulings stand; it declined last month to hear the case.
Hernandez was sentenced to 41 years in prison in the case, which included time for four forgery counts consolidated with the robbery case.
Assistant Attorney General Arthur Pepin said drunkenness only works as a defense if it can be shown it diminished a defendant's capacity to form intent to commit a crime.
Pepin said Hernandez acted rationally while choosing "not the wisest course of action."
"Perhaps a better planned robbery would have been more successful," he said.
Key put it this way: "He, and you can quote me, gets the dumb crook of the year award."