Legal Opinion
State v. Rotherham
New Mexico Supreme Court
Decided May 31, 1996No. 22059, 22462, 22497, 22608 and 22650PublishedCited by 43 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
BACA Justice.
At issue on appeal is the constitutionality of New Mexico’s Mental Illness and Competency Code, NMSA1978, §§ 31-9-1 to -1.5 (Cum.Supp.1995) (hereinafter “the NMMIC”), which provides the procedure to be followed in cases where a criminal defendant is incompetent to stand trial. ■ Appellants, Christopher Rotherham, Lucille Epperson, Richard Lopez, and Charles Lucas, are criminal defendants who are incompetent to stand trial. On appeal, they contend that the NMMIC is unconstitutional. Appellant, the State of New Mexico, appealing the dismissal of criminal commitment…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- In Re WINSHIPSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by43 opinions
- State v. TrujilloNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2009
- Wagner v. AGW CONSULTANTSNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2005
- Davis v. Devon Energy Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 2009
- State v. WoodruffNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. TaylorNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2000
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.