State v. Zamora
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of armed robbery in violation of § 40A-16-2, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6, 1975 Supp.). He appeals. We affirm.
A. Defendant was not entitled to a directed verdict.
Defendant was convicted as an accessory to armed robbery. He seeks a reversal and discharge based upon the denial of his motion for a directed verdict.
In ruling on a defense motion for a directed verdict, evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the State. State v. McKay, 79 N.M. 797, 450 P.2d 435 (Ct.App.1969). We have carefully reviewed the taped proceedings. We find the…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
- Pharmaseal Laboratories, Inc. v. GoffeNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. CarterCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1971
- State v. AlderetteNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. SanchezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1982
- Manlove v. SullivanNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1989
- State v. GallegosNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1978
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. DoeNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1979
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.