Legal Opinion
State v. Almanza
New Mexico Court of Appeals
Decided May 18, 2007No. 25,929PublishedCited by 13 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
PICKARD, Judge.
{1} The issue we are required to determine in this case is whether a witness in a criminal case is allowed to give testimony by telephone in the absence of a compelling reason or need for such testimony. We hold that the appearance by telephone of a chemist from the New Mexico State Crime Lab was not permitted under the circumstances of this case, and we therefore reverse Defendant’s conviction for distribution of a controlled substance and remand for a new trial.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
{2} Defendant was charged with one count of distribution of methamphetamine. His trial…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Maryland v. CraigSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Coy v. IowaSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- State v. FosterNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1999
- United States v. Christopher HamiltonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1997
- State v. RomeroNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. BullcomingNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008
- State v. SchwartzNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. ChungNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2012
- State v. SmithNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2013
- State v. ChungNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2012
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.