State v. Ericksen
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALTERS, Judge.
The State contends that the judge designated to hear this case had no jurisdiction to enter an order dismissing the charges against defendants Ericksen, Procell, Crockett and Williams, with prejudice, after the district attorney had filed a notice of nolle prosequi dismissing the cause without prejudice.
Under ordinary circumstances, the State’s position is correct. See State v. Sweat, 78 N.M. 512, 433 P.2d 229 (Ct.App.1967). But this is not an ordinary case.
One judge of the Twelfth Judicial District had recused himself; the other had been disqualified. The Chief Justice…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Delgado v. StanleyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
- Birdo v. RodriguezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
- State v. SweatNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1967
- State Ex Rel. Tittman v. McGheeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1937
- State v. TowndrowNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1919
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by22 opinions
- State v. CoffinNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. AhasteenNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1998
- State v. MayberryNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. BoltonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1996
- Walker v. WaltonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2003
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.