Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Villa

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided December 2, 2003No. 23,229Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKennedy, Judge

{47} There is a profound difference between reviewing a verdict and producing a verdict. I join the majority in reversing Defendant’s conviction for insufficient evidence; it was impossible for him to commit crimes in violation of a discharge permit when no such permit legally existed. We correctly decided that the evidence was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain those convictions. A directed verdict on the charges would therefore have been proper.

{48} JL-rdspectfully dissent from the majority’s 'accepting the invitation in the State’s supplemental brief to now, in the face of our…

2Cases cited29 opinions

  1. Beck v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  2. Rutledge v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  3. State v. RowellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1995
  4. State v. GarciaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Santillanes v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993

24 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