Legal Opinion

State v. Maestas

New Mexico Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 2018No. S-1-SC-34798PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MAES, Justice.

{1} In prior cases we have determined that while a defendant has the constitutional right to confrontation, that right may be forfeited as a result of his own wrongdoing. In this case we determine whether wrongdoing requires an overt threat of harm to procure a witness's silence or absence. When the State's witness, Juliana Barela, Defendant Joshua Maestas's girlfriend, refused to testify at trial, the district court declared her unavailable. The State then requested that the district court find that Defendant had obtained Barela's unavailability by wrongdoing, and to therefore…

2Cases cited36 opinions

  1. Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. Davis v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 2006
  3. Reynolds v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Giles v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 2008
  5. United States v. Gurmeet Singh DhinsaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2001

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. United States v. Samuel PrattCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
  2. State v. J. Martinez, Jr.Montana Supreme Court · 2023
  3. ANDERSON (ARNOLD) VS. STATENevada Supreme Court · 2019
  4. State v. Sh akaCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 2019
  5. ANDERSON (ARNOLD) VS. STATENevada Supreme Court · 2019

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API