From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Schultz

Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jul 24, 1929
279 P. 561 (N.M. 1929)

Opinion

No. 3359.

July 24, 1929.

Appeal from District Court, Union County; Kiker, Judge.

H.B. Woodward, of Clayton, for appellant.

Robert C. Dow, Atty. Gen., and Frank H. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


OPINION OF THE COURT


Appellant was convicted of embezzlement.

[ 1] We find no merit in the contention based upon the refusal of requested instructions. Their subject-matter was sufficiently included in instructions given.

Witnesses 40 Cyc. p. 2617 n. 23.

[ 2] On cross-examination the court permitted appellant to be asked whether he had not taken mortgaged property out of the state. The ruling was no doubt made on the authority of State v. Bailey, 27 N.M. 145, 198 P. 529, which seems to justify it.

The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

BICKLEY, C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

CATRON and SIMMS, JJ., did not participate.


Summaries of

State v. Schultz

Supreme Court of New Mexico
Jul 24, 1929
279 P. 561 (N.M. 1929)
Case details for

State v. Schultz

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. SCHULTZ

Court:Supreme Court of New Mexico

Date published: Jul 24, 1929

Citations

279 P. 561 (N.M. 1929)
279 P. 561

Citing Cases

State v. Solis

" Complaint is made of the overruling of the objections, and the refusal to strike the answer, "No sir." We…

State v. Holden

That the trial court is allowed a broad discretion in controlling the extent of such a cross-examination is…