State v. Soliz
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
VANZI, Judge.
{1} This interlocutory appeal follows from the district court’s pre-trial ruling that Celina Gallegos’s (Gallegos) statements to a 911 operator that Joseph Soliz (Defendant) had just violently attacked her were inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The district court appears to have concluded that Gallegos’s statements during the 911 call were testimonial in nature, pursuant to Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S.Ct. 2266, 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006), and thus the transcript of Gallegos’s 911 call is…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
- United States v. Joseph ArnoldCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
- State v. RomeroNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2007
- State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. JimNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2014
- State v. GutierrezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2011
- State v. TsosieNew Mexico Supreme Court · 2022
- State v. JimNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 2014