2002).Īfter the State violated Rule 11-615 NMRA and could not introduce previously undisclosed evidence, the trial court dismissed indictments against defendants for embezzlement or larceny over $ 250.00, violations of 30-16-8, 30-16-1, and 30-28-2 NMSA 1978, because the State could not prove the value of the thing that was stolen, as was required by Rules 14-1601 and 14-1641 NMRA 1978. V and 30-1-13 and 39-3-3B NMSA 1978 because the state in a criminal case could not appeal an erroneous jury acquittal that resulted from compromise, mistake, nullification, passion, prejudice, or other irrational reason. 2004).ĭefendant could not bar his prosecution under the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel under U.S. The trial court properly found that jeopardy attached in the City’s prior civil forfeiture proceeding under New Mexico’s Controlled Substances Act, 30-31-1 to 30-31-40 NMSA 1978, against defendants’ vehicle when a stipulated order of dismissal was filed returning the vehicle to the manufacturer’s credit agency as the City conditioned its dismissal of the forfeiture proceeding on the prohibition of the return of the vehicle to defendants. June 23, 2014), overruled as stated in State v. May 8, 2014), overruled as stated in State v. 12, 2014), overruled in part as stated in State v. June 13, 2013), overruled as stated in State v. Furthermore, the crime of voluntary manslaughter included the element of unlawful killing. 2005).Ĭonvictions for both voluntary manslaughter and the offense of shooting at or from a motor vehicle did not violate double jeopardy because voluntary manslaughter did not require the element of discharging a firearm at or from a motor vehicle, but that element was required for the crime of shooting at or from a motor vehicle. Given the relatively minor consequences involved to the drivers and the potential disruption of smoothly working procedures, the driver’s due process rights were not violated and mandamus was not appropriate except in cases where a plea was made under duress or some like circumstance. Trial court erred in granting the driver’s petition for mandamus and ordering the New Mexico motor vehicle division to forward the driver’s penalty assessment traffic citation to the metropolitan court for trial because the driver chose to plead guilty by signing the ticket and his claim that the officer did not advise him that he could have appeared in court and requested a deferral of prosecution did not rise to the level required to entitle him to withdraw his guilty plea, therefore the MVD did not have a clear duty to forward the citation to the court. Just compensation in condemnation actions. ≼ontributing to the delinquency of minors.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |