Legal Opinion
State v. Shaw
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided May 24, 1977No. 2855PublishedCited by 16 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
WOOD, Chief Judge.
Defendant appeals his conviction of armed robbery. Section 40A — 16-2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, Supp.1975). We reverse because of two capricious rulings of the trial court involving: (1) polygraph examination and, (2) tender of evidence. The State presents a casuistic defense for each of the rulings.
Polygraph Examination
The results of polygraph examinations are admissible evidence in New Mexico if a proper foundation is laid and the results are relevant at trial. State v. Bell, 90 N.M. 134, 560 P.2d 925 (1977); State v. Dorsey, 87 N.M. 323, 532 P.2d 912 (Ct.App.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- State v. BellNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
- Commonwealth v. BarnettMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1976
- State v. DorseyNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1975
- State v. KendallNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1977
- Barci v. Intalco Aluminum Corp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1974
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. BashorMontana Supreme Court · 1980
- State v. AllenNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. JohnsonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1984
- State v. FuentesNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. AaronNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1984
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.