 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| State v. Eger, Docket No. 26,992,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a DWI case, the denial of defendant's untimely motion to appeal was reversed and remanded as defense counsel's failure to timely appeal under N.M. R. Ann. 6-703(A) defendant's magistrate court conditional plea agreement to district court was presumptively ineffective assistance of counsel.
|
|||||
| State v. McClaugherty, Docket No. 24,409,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 15, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: N.M. Stat. Ann. § 39-1-1 did not deny a district court the ability to dismiss the State's appeal and reopen the evidence in connection with defendant's motion to bar retrial for prosecutorial misconduct. The district court did not err in concluding that the prosecutor's improper use of hearsay did not bar a retrial on double jeopardy grounds.
|
|||||
| State v. Edwards, Docket No. 25,675,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a sex crimes case, defense counsel's performance was deficient because he failed to advise defendant that a plea of no contest would almost certainly result in defendant having to register as a sex offender under the New Mexico Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 29-11A-1 to -10.
|
|||||
| King v. Allstate Ins. Co., Docket No. 25,539,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 20, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an injured passenger settled his claim against a driver, his claims against the insurer under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 59A-16-20(E) were barred as a matter of law because his election to settle the claims against the driver without a judicial determination of liability waived any claims under the Insurance Code for unfair settlement practices.
|
|||||
| State v. Cortez, Docket No. 25,406,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 22, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions relating to trafficking cocaine were improper because the procedure and communication in which the district court spoke with the jury foreperson without the rest of the jury present constituted fundamental error. The district court did not, as required under N.M. R. Ann. 5-610(D), communicate in open court with the jury.
|
|||||
| Doe v. Santa Clara Pueblo, Docket No. 29,350 Consolidated with Docket No. 29,351,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pueblos' motions to dismiss casino patrons' personal injury actions on subject matter jurisdiction grounds were properly denied because gaming compacts entered into between the Pueblos and the State conferred jurisdiction on state courts for personal injury claims arising out of injuries on Pueblo casinos.
|
|||||
| State v. Gallegos, Docket No. 29,538,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused discretion in failing to sever charges under N.M. R. Ann. 5-203(C) because evidence pertaining to each charge would not have been cross-admissible at separate trials. Defendant was prejudiced by the admission of evidence pertaining to indecent exposure victim for purposes of criminal sexual contact conviction.
|
|||||
| State v. Otto, Docket No. 29,158,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, February 23, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged acts of defendant against victim under N.M. R. Ann. 11-404(B) because evidence was admitted to show intent and absence of mistake or accident, as defendant had told a detective that what he did to the vicitm might have been done in his sleep without his conscious intent.
|
|||||
| State v. Campbell, Docket No. 24,899,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for criminal sexual contact of a minor was reversed. Trial court committed prejudicial error when it excluded expert testimony under N.M. R. Ann. 11-702 about why children might inaccurately report experiences, as testimony could help the jury and was essential to the defense that the child's mother induced the child to lie.
|
|||||
| State v. Contreras, Docket No. 25,526,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, February 26, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's cocaine convictions were upheld because there was no Fifth Amendment double jeopardy violation, a prison photo was properly admitted under N.M. R. Ann. 11-403 and 11-404(B), and counsel was not ineffective; however, there was insufficient evidence to support the habitual offender enhancement under N.M. Stat. Ann. § 31-18-17.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
