State v. O'Kelley

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Waquie

    No. A-1-CA-39749 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 31, 2022)

    {ΒΆ3} When considering sufficiency of the evidence, reviewing courts consider all evidence, even improperly admitted evidence. See State v. O'Kelley, 1994-NMCA-033, ΒΆ 16, 118 N.M. 52, 878 P.2d 1001 ("The correct rule is that when determining whether retrial is barred because there was insufficient evidence of guilt at the trial from which the appeal is taken, the appellate court considers all of the evidence admitted, even that evidence which it holds was admitted improperly.").

  2. State v. Lorenzo

    No. A-1-CA-36648 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 24, 2022)

    In making this determination, we consider all evidence, even improperly-admitted evidence. See State v. O'Kelley, 1994-NMCA-033, ΒΆ 16, 118 N.M. 52, 878 P.2d 1001.

  3. State v. Antonio M.

    2022 NMCA 41 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022)   Cited 6 times

    However, Child's argument is flawed because when considering sufficiency of the evidence, reviewing courts consider all evidence, even improperly admitted evidence. See State v. O'Kelley, 1994-NMCA-033, ΒΆ 16, 118 N.M. 52, 878 P.2d 1001 ("The correct rule is that when determining whether retrial is barred because there was insufficient evidence of guilt at the trial from which the appeal is taken, the appellate court considers all of the evidence admitted, even that evidence which it holds was admitted improperly.").

  4. State v. Lorenzo

    No. A-1-CA-36648 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2022)

    In making this determination, we consider all evidence, even improperly-admitted evidence. See State v. O'Kelley, 1994-NMCA-033, ΒΆ 16, 118 N.M. 52, 878 P.2d 1001.

  5. State v. Chavez

    NO. A-1-CA-37550 (N.M. Ct. App. Dec. 12, 2018)

    To the extent that Defendant's argument may suggest a sufficiency challenge based on foundational concerns, [MIO 4-5] we perceive no merit. See generally Rule 11-104(A) NMRA (providing that hearsay may be considered for purposes of authentication); cf. State v. O'Kelley, 1994-NMCA-033, ΒΆ 16, 118 N.M. 52, 878 P.2d 1001 (explaining that when considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict, the appellate court considers all the evidence admitted, including evidence that may have been admitted improperly). {5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.

  6. Pope v. Gap, Inc.

    125 N.M. 376 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 61 times
    Holding that a prior version of Rule 1-068 is identical to its counterpart in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that the court may therefore look to federal law for guidance

    We also note that ordinarily even a judgment entered after a full trial is not admissible as evidence of what was decided at trial. See State v. O'Kelley, 118 N.M. 52, 55, 878 P.2d 1001, 1004 (Ct.App. 1994);State v. Hoeffel, 112 N.M. 358, 359-61, 815 P.2d 654, 655-57 (Ct. App. 1991); Rule 11-803(V),(W) NMRA 1998 (hearsay exceptions for certain judgments used for specific purposes). Thus, we conclude that neither the offer of judgment nor the final judgment entered against The Gap would be admissible in other litigation as evidence of The Gap's liability.

  7. State v. Lovato

    118 N.M. 155 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 13 times
    Finding evidence to be stale when seventy-two hours had passed between the time of a controlled buy at a hotel room and the preparation of the affidavit

    Because we remand for a new trial, we do not reach James' issue of ineffective assistance of counsel since it is not likely to arise on retrial. We do, however, address his issue as to the sufficiency of the evidence, because, if the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction, we would be compelled to dismiss with prejudice. As we reiterated recently in State v. O'Kelley, 118 N.M. 52, 57, 878 P.2d 1001, 1006 (Ct.App. 1994), "[t]he correct rule is that when determining whether retrial is barred because there was insufficient evidence of guilt at the trial from which the appeal is taken, the appellate court considers all the evidence admitted, even that evidence which it holds was admitted improperly." See also State v. Post, 109 N.M. 177, 181, 783 P.2d 487, 491 (Ct.App. 1989).