Legal Opinion

State v. Tisthammer

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided June 9, 1998No. 18,328PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

PICKARD, Judge.

{1} In this case, we consider whether the Grand Jury Act or the Public Defender Act provides a target witness testifying before a grand jury with a right to counsel such that an indictment must be dismissed if counsel is not present and there is no express voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of counsel’s presence. We hold that they do not. Defendant appeals the denial of his motion seeking to dismiss a grand jury indictment for multiple counts of burglary, conspiracy, and other related charges because Defendant did not have an attorney present when he testified as…

2Cases cited25 opinions

  1. Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1931
  2. Cassell v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1950
  3. Roth v. ThompsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Buzbee v. DonnellyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1981
  5. State v. SandersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1994

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

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. State v. CleveNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
  2. State v. ReyesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
  3. State v. VallejosNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
  4. State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Vanessa C.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
  5. State v. AndersonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2001

4 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