Legal Opinion

State v. Padilla

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided October 2, 2000No. 20,232PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ALARID, Judge.

{1} This case requires us to decide whether the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the District Courts authorized the trial court to sever Defendant’s trial from that of his co-defendant, and then, after jury selection was completed in the co-defendant’s ease, to re-consolidate the trials at Defendant’s request. As we explain below, this procedure runs afoul of Rule 5-612 NMRA 2000 (1972, as amended through 1974), which prohibits the commencement of a criminal trial in the defendant’s absence. Because a defendant’s absence at the commencement of his trial is a non-waivable,…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. United States v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  2. Diaz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  3. New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  4. United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
  5. Crosby v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993

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

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. State v. PadillaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
  2. Duran v. EichwaldNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2009
  3. State v. RaelNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
  4. State v. RaelNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
  5. Beverly v. BeverlyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000

5 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