State v. Padilla
New Mexico Court of Appeals
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
- United States v. LaneSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Diaz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
- New York v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
- United States v. MezzanattoSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Crosby v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- State v. PadillaNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
- Duran v. EichwaldNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. RaelNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. RaelNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
- Beverly v. BeverlyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.