Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. McClaugherty

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 15, 2007No. 24,409Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partKennedy, Judge

{55} I fully concur that we have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, and that Section 39-1-1 does not apply to situations such as we have here. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because this uncommon and extraordinary case represents two independent aspects, either of which merit reversing the district court; either to leave its original and proper dismissal of the case intact, or to dismiss the indictment as violating double jeopardy for the prosecutorial misconduct that occurred at trial.

{56} How common is a murder case in which: (1) the prosecution represents at trial that it…

2Cases cited42 opinions

  1. Berger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
  2. Oregon v. KennedySupreme Court of the United States · 1982
  3. Pool v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  4. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles J. SANCHEZ, Jr., Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1999
  5. People v. MonterrosoCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004

37 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