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.
ยง

State v. Waller

80 N.M. 380 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
State v. Waller

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Trejo

    113 N.M. 342 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 24 times
    Determining that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting a prior conviction for an identical charge for impeachment purposes

    Defendant relies on two decisions of this court predating our adoption of the Federal Rules of Evidence. In State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969), and State v. Coca, 80 N.M. 95, 451 P.2d 999 (Ct.App. 1969), we held that a trial court must "properly perform its affirmative duty of weighing the legitimate probative value of the cross-examination against the illegitimate tendency to prejudice." Waller, 80 N.M. at 381, 456 P.2d at 214.

  2. State v. Victorian

    84 N.M. 491 (N.M. 1973)   Cited 24 times
    In State v. Victorian, 84 N.M. 491, 505 P.2d 436 (1973) the defendant failed to object to allegedly improper argument by the prosecutor until after the verdict was returned.

    However, he urges the trial court was obliged to weigh the probative value of the doctor's conviction against the prejudicial effect thereof upon defendant, and that the court failed to exercise its discretion in conducting this weighing process. He relies upon State v. Williams, 76 N.M. 578, 417 P.2d 62 (1966); State v. Holden, 45 N.M. 147, 113 P.2d 171 (1941); State v. Sibold, 83 N.M. 678, 496 P.2d 738 (Ct.App. 1972); State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969); State v. Coca, supra. In each of these cases the defendant was being questioned as to his prior convictions.

  3. State v. Hogervorst

    90 N.M. 580 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 49 times
    Holding there was no unlawful search where a state actor secretly records a face-to-face conversation with a defendant without a warrant

    The fact that competent evidence may tend to prejudice defendant is not grounds for exclusion of that evidence. See State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969). The question is whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect.

  4. State v. Padilla

    90 N.M. 481 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 28 times
    Refusing to find error in the failure to give an unrequested instruction defining intent to kill or do great bodily harm despite mandatory use note

    The jury was given instructions on defendant's right to self-defense that corresponds to U.J.I. Criminal 41.41. Defendant's requested instruction would have injected a false issue in the case since there was no evidence to support the giving of the instruction. State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969). The fight was at an end when the Montoyas left the building.

  5. State v. Ross

    88 N.M. 1 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975)   Cited 36 times
    Holding that state may not introduce extrinsic evidence regarding specific instances of conduct to attack witnesses' credibility under Rule 11-608(B) or 11-613

    We hold that the trial court did not properly balance the probative value of the collateral testimony against its illegitimate tendency to prejudice. Rule 403, ยง 20-4-403, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, Supp. 1973); State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969); see State v. Rowell, supra, see State v. Garcia, supra. This is true especially in view of the fact that the case at bar was essentially a swearing contest between the defendant and the complaining witness, both of whose versions of the events of the night were equally plausible or implausible.

  6. State v. Mireles

    84 N.M. 146 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 16 times
    Determining no error in refusing instruction that does not state the defendant's theory

    Because the refused instruction did not state a theory of the case and because the substance of the refused instruction was covered by the quoted portion of Instruction 3, the trial court did not err in refusing the requested instruction. State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969). Defendant contends the following instruction confused and misled the jury and, therefore, deprived defendant of a fair trial.

  7. State v. Durham

    83 N.M. 350 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 6 times

    Defendant was entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case if the evidence reasonably tended to sustain such a theory. State v. Jones, 52 N.M. 235, 195 P.2d 1020 (1948); State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969). One of defendant's theories was involuntary manslaughter.

  8. State v. Biswell

    83 N.M. 65 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 4 times

    The record does not support a claim that the trial court did not exercise its discretion. Defendant places much reliance on State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969). In Waller this court reversed a conviction in which the trial court ruled that under ยง 20-2-3, supra, cross-examination for impeachment purposes could extend to "any unlawful act."

  9. STATE v. BACA

    81 N.M. 686 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 9 times

    Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to properly balance the probative value of the cross-examination against its tendency to be prejudicial. See State v. Holden, 45 N.M. 147, 113 P.2d 171 (1941); State v. McFerran, 80 N.M. 622, 459 P.2d 148 (Ct.App. 1969); State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969). We disagree.

  10. State v. Lindsey

    81 N.M. 173 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970)   Cited 41 times
    In State v. Lindsey, 81 N.M. 173, 464 P.2d 903 (Ct.App. 1969), there is a discussion of the right to raise the issue of change of venue at a date following that provided by statutory provisions when it is the only manner available under the circumstances.

    He claims the court erred in two particulars: (1) in failing to properly exercise its discretion in ruling on the admissibility of defendant's prior convictions, and (2) in failing to suppress evidence of the convictions. As to defendant's claim that the trial court failed to properly exercise its discretion in ruling on the admissibility of evidence as to his prior convictions, he relies upon State v. Waller, 80 N.M. 380, 456 P.2d 213 (Ct.App. 1969) and State v. Coca, 80 N.M. 95, 451 P.2d 999 (Ct.App. 1969). Nothing stated in those cases is applicable here.