Legal Opinion
State v. Barela
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided February 20, 1974No. 1256PublishedCited by 15 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of distributing heroin. Section 54-11-20, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2, 1973 Supp.) She appeals. We reverse.
Defendant contends: (1) The deposition of Dr. Robert G. Schoenfeld was inadmissible at trial under Rule 29(n) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. (2) There was insufficient evidence to support the conviction.(1)The deposition was inadmissible at trial.
On the morning of trial, defendant objected to the State’s use of the deposition of Dr. Robert G. Schoenfeld because of non-compliance with Rule 29(a), (e) and (n) of the Rules of Criminal…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- California v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- Douglas v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
- State v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1972
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of South Carolina · 1956
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. HerreraNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. VialpandoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1981
- State v. TurnerCourt of Appeals of Iowa · 1983
- State v. BobbinNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1985
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.