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. Brown

135 N.M. 291 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Brown

3 Citing cases

  1. State v. Brown

    139 N.M. 466 (N.M. 2006)   Cited 30 times
    Holding that constitutional considerations, along with state statutes providing for indigent criminal defense, mandate that indigent defendant represented by pro bono counsel be afforded same access to expert witness funding as indigent defendants represented by public defender

    {7} The Court of Appeals granted interlocutory appeal from the order of the district court, and upheld the district court's decision. State v. Brown, 2004-NMCA-037, 135 N.M. 291, 87 P.3d 1073. Relying heavily on Subin v. Ulmer, 2001-NMCA-105, 131 N.M. 350, 36 P.3d 441, the Court of Appeals held that the district court had no authority to order the payment of expert witness fees for an indigent defendant who is represented by pro bono defense counsel.

  2. Moore v. State

    390 Md. 343 (Md. 2006)   Cited 52 times
    Holding that evidence of prior bad acts of a witness “did not exculpate [the defendant], but rather only made it more likely that [the witness] was [also] involved”

    In State v. Brown, 135 N.M. 291, 87 P.3d 1073, 1086 (Ct.App. 2004) (Vigil, J., dissenting), addressing an issue much like that which this Court is confronting, Judge Vigil advanced, as one ground for his dissent, the strong policy of New Mexico to encourage pro bono services. That policy is reflected in the Preamble to the N.M. Rules of Professional Conduct and in its Rule 16-601, requiring New Mexico attorneys to aspire to render at least 50 hours of pro bono public legal services per year.

  3. State v. Wacey C

    135 N.M. 186 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 11 times
    Stating that the general considerations governing the appropriateness of probation conditions applicable in adult cases were consistent with this Court's holding in a juvenile case that a probation condition forbidding a child from going to certain locations where he committed offenses was not a banishment and was a reasonable probation condition

    We will not question or attempt to coerce the Legislature's decision to fund treatment centers at a level that results in some children being required to wait for an available space. See State v. Brown, 2004-NMCA-037, ¶¶ 30-32, 135 N.M. 291, 87 P.3d 1073 [No. 23,610 (N.M.Ct.App. Jan. 15, 2004)]. We also point out that it was Child's violent acts during his previous residential treatment placement, and not the mere existence of a delay in admittance to Sequoyah, that resulted in the need for Child's detention.