Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

State v. Saiz

92 N.M. 776 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Saiz

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Gilbert

    100 N.M. 392 (N.M. 1983)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that the language of Section 31-20A-6 was not unconstitutionally vague and indefinite

    This conduct is not so prejudicial as to vitiate the indictment. Cf. State v. Saiz, 92 N.M. 776, 595 P.2d 414 (Ct.App. 1979) (prosecutor's comment to grand jury regarding dismissal of defendant's previous indictment not inherently prejudicial). Trial Court's Refusal to Compel Election and Refusal to Direct a Verdict Based on Insufficient Evidence to Support the Kidnapping Charges.

  2. State v. Cruz

    99 N.M. 690 (N.M. 1983)   Cited 5 times
    In State v. Cruz, 99 N.M. 690, 662 P.2d 1357 (1983), and Rogers v. State, 94 N.M. 218, 608 P.2d 530 (Ct.App. 1980), a target was the defendant, a person to be indicted.

    Moreover, there was nothing unreasonable in the prosecutor's assertion of the right to maintain order in the grand jury proceedings. See State v. Saiz, 92 N.M. 776, 595 P.2d 414 (Ct.App. 1979). Therefore, because Respondent was both notified of his target status and given an opportunity to testify, we find that the statutory requirements were met.

  3. State v. McCall

    101 N.M. 616 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    In State v. McCall, 101 N.M. 616, 629, 686 P.2d 958, 971 (Ct.App. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 101 N.M. 32, 677 P.2d 1068 (1984), this Court, in an opinion later withdrawn from publication, see State v. Shade, 104 N.M. 710, 724 n. 2, 726 P.2d 864, 878 n. 2 (Ct.App.), cert. quashed, 104 N.M. 702, 726 P.2d 856 (1986), described this subsection as addressing the theory of merger, whereby a lesser but included offense merges into the principal crime for purposes of prosecution.

    But because his remarks were corrected and tempered with repeated instructions to "decide the case for yourselves on the evidence," it was not misconduct of a nature requiring dismissal of the indictment. State v. Ballinger, supra; State v. Martinez, 97 N.M. 585, 642 P.2d 188 (Ct.App. 1982); State v. Saiz, 92 N.M. 776, 595 P.2d 414 (Ct.App. 1979). C. Subpoena of Bank Records

  4. State v. Ballinger

    99 N.M. 707 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that even if jury refused to find defendant committed murder, it could have found defendant intended the crime to be committed, it was committed, and he "helped, encouraged or caused" the crime

    In an effort to maintain coherence and continuity, much of the prosecutor's commentary was unavoidable; some of it was necessary in explanation of facts, law, and sequential procedures unfamiliar to the jury. See State v. Saiz, 92 N.M. 776, 595 P.2d 414 (Ct.App. 1979). Although considerably more frequent and extensive than the remarks discussed in Martinez, supra, the prosecutor's comments here resulted, to a large degree, from the complexity of the evidence and the number of persons targeted in the grand jury proceedings.

  5. State v. Edwards

    97 N.M. 141 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981)   Cited 21 times
    Applying Innis

    State v. Rhodes, 77 N.M. 536, 425 P.2d 47 (1967). See, State v. Saiz, 92 N.M. 776, 595 P.2d 414 (Ct.App. 1979). The district attorney may file a nolle prosequi upon good cause and honest motives, but it may not be used to circumvent the rules.