State v. Romero

1 Citing case

  1. State v. Ramming

    106 N.M. 42 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 29 times
    Stating that exclusion of evidence is not mandated simply because it is prejudicial to a defendant

    Other issues, which were listed in the docketing statement but not briefed, are abandoned. State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App. 1985). Finally, defendant expressly abandons his issue concerning the racketeering instruction because of his pardon on the racketeering count.