State v. King

23 Citing cases

  1. State v. Saavedra

    103 N.M. 282 (N.M. 1985)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of commission of similar robberies by a third person, where the defense theory was that the third person committed the robbery

    A motion for a mistrial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is only reviewable for an abuse of discretion. State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977). The case law in New Mexico is clear and consistent in holding that erroneous admission of evidence of prior crimes of the accused is error, absent special circumstances.

  2. State v. Lopez

    NO. 33,200 (N.M. Jun. 13, 2013)

    The firearm enhancement does not apply to capital felonies, only noncapital felonies. State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 379, 563 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Ct. App. 1977) ("[F]irst degree murder is defined as a capital felony and the firearm enhancement provision does not apply to capital felonies"), overruled on other grounds by State v. Reynolds, 98 N.M. 527, 529, 650 P.2d 811, 813 (1982). We therefore agree with both Defendant and the State that the one-year enhancement to Defendant's life-sentence should be reversed.

  3. State v. Salazar

    123 N.M. 778 (N.M. 1997)   Cited 160 times
    Holding that "testimony alleging that the Defendant pursued [the victim], pointed the gun, and fired provides an adequate source of direct evidence that the Defendant acted with deliberation, intending to kill [the victim]"

    "Shooting at Manzanares" suggests, to a certain degree, an intentional act, and wrongly describes the mens rea associated with involuntary manslaughter. NMSA 1978, § 30-2-3 (1994) (describing manslaughter as the killing of a human being without malice); State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 380, 563 P.2d 1170, 1173 (Ct.App. 1977) (stating that the involuntary manslaughter statute excludes all cases of intentional killing), overruled on other grounds by State v. Reynolds, 98 N.M. 527, 650 P.2d 811 (1982). It is not error for a trial court to refuse instructions which are inaccurate.

  4. State v. Omar-Muhammad

    105 N.M. 788 (N.M. 1987)   Cited 10 times
    Holding that defendant's testimony about marijuana use could support a conviction for vehicular homicide while under the influence of drugs

    We have analyzed felonious homicide, the unlawful taking of human life, as a "generic offense" encompassing several degrees or forms. See id., 38 N.M. at 468, 35 P.2d at 289; see also State v. Ulibarri, 67 N.M. 336, 338, 355 P.2d 275, 276 (1960); State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 412, 416-17, 60 P.2d 646, 655, 658 (1936); cf. State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 379, 563 P.2d 1170, 1172 (Ct.App. 1977) (open charge of murder), overruled on other grounds, State v. Reynolds, 98 N.M. 527, 650 P.2d 811 (1982). We repeatedly have held that it is error for the trial court to refuse to instruct on a degree of homicide for which there is substantial evidence, and error to submit a degree of homicide for which there is no evidence.

  5. State v. Beach

    102 N.M. 642 (N.M. 1985)   Cited 17 times
    In Beach, however, this Court refused to allow a diminished capacity instruction for second-degree murder because of its blanket conclusion that second-degree murder is not a "specific-intent crime" and because the Court felt bound by the existing criminal uniform jury instructions limiting diminished capacity defenses to willful and deliberate murder and other specific-intent crimes.

    Therefore, the prompt sustaining of defendant's objection and the admonition to the jury to disregard the answer cured any prejudicial effect. State v. Simonson, 100 N.M. 297, 669 P.2d 1092 (1983); State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977), overruled on other grounds, 98 N.M. 527, 650 P.2d 811 (1982). Defendant's conviction for first-degree murder is affirmed.

  6. State v. Simonson

    100 N.M. 297 (N.M. 1983)   Cited 64 times
    Holding that the State is entitled to correct through rebuttal testimony false impressions given to jury by defense

    The overwhelming New Mexico case law states that the prompt sustaining of the objection and an admonition to disregard the answer cures any prejudicial effect of inadmissible testimony. State v. Vialpando, 93 N.M. 289, 599 P.2d 1086 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 93 N.M. 172, 598 P.2d 215 (1979); State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977); State v. Baca, 81 N.M. 686, 472 P.2d 651 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 81 N.M. 721, 472 P.2d 984 (1970). Therefore, since the granting of a mistrial is discretionary with the trial court, we will not disturb the decision on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.

  7. State v. Cortez

    100 N.M. 158 (N.M. 1983)   Cited 6 times

    On the basis of the trial record, I would hold any prejudice was cured by the trial court's admonition. State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977); State v. McFerran, 80 N.M. 622, 459 P.2d 148 (Ct.App. 1969). I would affirm.

  8. State v. Reynolds

    98 N.M. 527 (N.M. 1982)   Cited 26 times
    Reversing conviction of first degree murder for failure to instruct on voluntary manslaughter

    We do not consider this to be harmless and non-prejudicial where the evidence would support such a choice by the jury. To the extent that State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977), and State v. Scott, 90 N.M. 256, 561 P.2d 1349 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 637, 567 P.2d 486 (1977), are inconsistent with State v. Benavidez, supra, those cases are hereby expressly overruled. The trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on voluntary manslaughter.

  9. State v. Perez

    95 N.M. 262 (N.M. 1980)   Cited 35 times
    Upholding a denial of continuance where the defense exhibited a lack of diligence in securing a witness

    The granting of a mistrial lies within the trial court's discretion and review is for an abuse of that discretion. State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977). There was no showing that any juror had read the article.

  10. State v. Stephens

    93 N.M. 458 (N.M. 1979)   Cited 37 times
    Holding in a felony-murder prosecution that a defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on second-degree murder because there was an issue as to "whether the murder was committed as part of the res gestae of the felony of robbery"

    The information in this case contains an "open charge" of murder because it does not define the murder by type or degree. See State v. King, 90 N.M. 377, 563 P.2d 1170 (Ct.App. 1977); State v. Roy, 40 N.M. 397, 60 P.2d 646 (1936). The information meets all the requirements of Rule 5.