Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Cutnose

New Mexico Court of Appeals

Decided February 12, 1975No. 1587Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSutin, Judge

I concur in the result of the majority opinion on applicability of the criminal trespass statute, and excusing a prospective juror. I dissent on affirmance of the conviction of Cutnose for assault in violation of § 40A-3-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl. Vol. 6).

The State of New Mexico did not have criminal jurisdiction in “Indian Country” within New Mexico to try Cutnose for aggravated assault. State v. Cutnose, 87 N. M. 307, 532 P.2d 896 (Ct.App.1974) (J. Sutin, dissenting). On December 20, 1974, the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in that case.

A. What is meant by denial of…

2Cases cited9 opinions

Brown v. AllenSupreme Court of the United States · 1953
United States v. CarverSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. BellSupreme Court of Florida · 1959
State v. CutnoseNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1974
American Motors Corp. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations BoardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1966

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