Legal Opinion
State v. Padilla
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided October 2, 1980No. 4488PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WALTERS, Judge.
Defendant asks reversal of his conviction for second-degree murder, arguing that a confession admitted into evidence should have been suppressed because it was tainted by an earlier statement, most of the earlier statement having been ruled inadmissible by the trial court. We affirm.
In State v. Austin, 91 N.M. 586, 577 P.2d 894 (Ct.App.1978), we said that the burden was on the State, after a first statement had been suppressed, to show that a second (or third) inculpatory statement was voluntary, and of so persuading the trial court. This case differs from Austin in that…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. DuranNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1978
- State v. PohlNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1976
- State v. ChavesNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1921
- State v. DicksonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Reeves v. WimberlyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1988
- State v. GossNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1991
- State v. JimNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1988
- State v. GilbertNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- State v. KurleyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1992
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.