 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Paiz, Docket No. 25,013,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, September 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to allow forensic psychological evaluations of the victims by a defense expert because the motion was untimely, as it was not filed until 12 days before defendant's second trial, and because defendant failed to show a specific basis or a compelling need for the evaluations.
|
|||||
| In re Estrada, Docket No. 28,406,
SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO, September 28, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to N.M. R. Ann. 17-206, attorney was suspended for one year for violating N.M. R. Ann. 16-101, 6-102(D), 16-304(A) and (D), 16-804(C) and (D), and 16-804(H) for violating rules of discovery by obstructing opposing party's access to evidence and failing to verify the authenticity of forged prescription before introducing it into evidence.
|
|||||
| State v. Stock, Docket No. 26,148,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, September 29, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was incarcerated for over three years without a trial, even though delay was technically attributable to defendant due to his overworked public defender, defendant's speedy trial rights under Fourth Amendment and N.M. Const. art. II, § 14, were violated in that State did not carry burden to rebut assertions of cognizable prejudice.
|
|||||
| State v. Carlos, Docket No. 25,982,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, October 3, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A defense attorney failed to provide effective assistance of counsel as required by U.S. Const. amend. VI where he did not conduct an individualized analysis of apparent immigration consequences for defendant based on the actual charges to which he pleaded guilty, but only advised defendant in general terns about possible immigration consequences.
|
|||||
| Hadrych v. Hadrych, Docket No. 25,456,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, October 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a husband waived his military retirement pay in order to receive disability pay, the wife was properly awarded her share of the retirement benefits because, inter alia, preemption under 10 U.S.C.S. § 1408 did not apply, the husband could not change the wife's right to 50% set by the divorce decree, and the order constituted enforcement.
|
|||||
| State v. Loretto, Docket No. 25,813,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, October 5, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was not an enumerated offense in N.M. Stat. Ann. § 33-2-34(L)(4)(n), a determination that a crime of attempted first degree criminal sexual penetration was a serious violent offense was reversed. Also, because of insufficient findings, a determination that criminal sexual contacts of a minor were serious violent offenses were reversed.
|
|||||
| State v. Carreon, Docket No. 26,048,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, October 6, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the State dismissed magistrate court charges against defendant just before the six-month expiration date under N.M. R. Ann. 6-506(B) and re-filed the same charges in the district court pursuant to policy, the six-month rule was violated because the policy could not serve as an indicator of good faith for purposes of a six-month rule analysis.
|
|||||
| State v. Armendariz, Docket No. 24,448,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, October 11, 2006, FiledCertiorari Denied, No. 30,085, November 27, 2006. Certiorari Granted, No. 30,127, December 14, 2006.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for aggravated burglary and false imprisonment violated double jeopardy, N.M. Const. art. II, § 15 and Fifth Amendment, as they were based on unitary conduct and were subsumed within criminal sexual penetration in the second degree (CSP II) convictions. Convictions for two counts of CSP II did not violate double jeopardy.
|
|||||
| State v. Travison B., Docket No. 25,562,
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO, October 16, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under U.S. Const. amend. IV and N.M. Const. art. II, § 10, exclusionary rule did not act to suppress police officers' statements after they entered defendant's apartment. Defendant's assault of the police officers who entered the apartment in response to a possible domestic violence, was a new criminal activity, distinct from the officers' entry.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
