Legal Opinion
State v. Tapia
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided March 13, 1970No. 408PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HENDLEY, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of the unlawful sale of a narcotic drug — heroin. Section 54 — 7-14, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 8, pt. 2). He appeals giving five points for reversal.
Wé affirm.
1. “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE BECAUSE OF THE UNAVAILABILITY OF THREE DEFENSE WITNESSES.”
Section 21-8-10, N.M.S.A. 1953 sets forth the requirements for a motion for continuance based on absence of evidence. Section 21-8-7, N.M.S.A. 1953 states that unless the facts be within the knowledge of the court, then the application for a continuance shall…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Escobedo v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Fay v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- State v. McAfeeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1967
- State v. AullNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1967
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. CastenedaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. MaesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1970
- State v. HouseNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
- Valdez v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1972
- State v. GreyeyesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1987
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.