Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Kanikaynar

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided March 26, 1997No. 16327Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partApodaca, Judge

23. I concur in the dispositions under Subsections II B, C and D of the majority opinion. I respectfully disagree, however, with the majority’s holding under Subsection II A that NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102 (Repl.Pamp.1994) does not violate Defendant’s right to due process. I would conclude instead that the failure to advise Defendant of the possible criminal consequences of his refusal to take a breath test violated Defendant’s right to due process.

I. DISCUSSION

24. The majority relies primarily on South Dakota v. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, 103 S.Ct. 916, 74 L.Ed.2d 748 (1983) as the basis for…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. South Dakota v. NevilleSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Roberts v. State of MaineCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
  4. State v. SuazoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994
  5. In Re McCainNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1973

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API