State v. Barboa
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
SUTIN, Judge.
Defendant was convicted of second degree murder. Section 40A-2-1, N.M.S.A. 1953 (2nd Repl.Vol. 6). He appeals.
We affirm.
Defendant contends (1) the indictment should have been quashed; (2) state’s closing argument was prejudicial; (3) permitting violation of exclusion rule was reversible error.(1)Failure to Quash Indictment was Not Error.
Defendant claims the indictment should have been quashed because it fails to state, with 'specificity and .particularity, facts which if taken as true, would constitute a crime.
The indictment charged the offense of murder by using the name…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited7 opinions
- State v. RomeroNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1961
- Sweitzer v. SanchezNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1969
- State v. PolskyNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1971
- State v. TurnerNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1970
- State v. CarrilloNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1970
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. SimonsonNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1983
- State v. OrtizNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- State v. BarboaNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1973
- State v. JaramilloNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
- State v. JaramilloNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1975
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.