Legal Opinion

State v. Walters

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided June 29, 2006No. 24,585, 24,566, 25,110PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

VIGIL, Judge.

{1} The dispositive issue in this case is whether Defendants were denied their constitutional rights of confrontation and cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution at their joint jury trial when interlocking confessions or statements of each Defendant were admitted into evidence and none of them testified. We determine that Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476 (1968), and Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), were violated and require the convictions to be reversed…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  4. Bruton v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  5. Pointer v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1965

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. WaltersNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
  2. State v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
  3. State v. VerdugoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. State v. VerdugoNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2007
  5. State v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007

8 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