Legal Opinion · Dissent

State v. Mobbley

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided August 3, 1982No. 5615Published

1DissentLopez, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority holds that the defendant can be charged with the offense of harboring or aiding Andrew Needham under § 30-22-4, N.M.S. A.1978, because she does not qualify under any of the exemptions listed in the statute with respect to Needham. It arrives at this holding in spite of the fact that the defendant could not have revealed the presence of Needham in the house without also revealing the presence of her husband. This holding negates the legislative intent of the statute to exempt a wife from being forced to turn in her husband. Under the majority ruling, the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. NanceNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1966
  2. State v. OrtizNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1967
  3. Edmonson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1888
  4. Draper v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API