§

State v. Walters

139 N.M. 705 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006)
State v. Walters

7 Citing cases

  1. State v. Chavez

    485 P.3d 1279 (N.M. 2021)   Cited 8 times

    All codefendants made statements during investigations that implicated their fellow codefendants and themselves for the respective charges. State v. Walters , 2006-NMCA-071, ¶¶ 6-14, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645 rev'd in part on other grounds , 2007-NMSC-050, ¶ 1, 142 N.M. 644, 168 P.3d 1068. Walters and Lopez each argued for severance, contending that a joint trial would prejudice them because the admission of their codefendants’ statements, which were interlocking confessions, would violate their right to confront the witnesses against them.

  2. State v. Lopez

    142 N.M. 613 (N.M. 2007)   Cited 7 times
    Holding that harmless error occurs when there is "no reasonable possibility that the evidence complained of might have contributed to the [defendant's] convictions" (alteration in original)

    Id. She suffered a blunt force injury to her head in the last three days or less of her life which resulted in a large subdural hematoma on her brain. Walters, 2006-NMCA-071, ¶ 4, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645. Baby Briana had bleeding within the membranes around the brain as well as around her optical nerves which meant that she had been violently shaken.

  3. State v. Lopez

    142 N.M. 138 (N.M. 2007)   Cited 15 times
    Finding a “per se” Sixth Amendment violation in admitting testimonial statements of co-defendants who did not testify at the defendant's trial where the defendant did not have an opportunity to cross-examine the co-defendants

    The Court held that the admission of the statements of the codefendants violated the defendants' Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and that this constitutional error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Walters, 2006-NMCA-071, ¶ 1, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645. The State appealed to this Court arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that (1) Defendant preserved her argument at trial, (2) her confrontation rights were violated, (3) this error was not harmless, and (4) Defendant is entitled to a separate trial.

  4. State v. Walters

    142 N.M. 644 (N.M. 2007)   Cited 18 times
    Recognizing that the admission of incriminating statements of non-testifying co-defendants at the defendant's trial was a per se violation of the defendant's right to confront the witnesses against him

    The Court of Appeals held that the admission of the codefendants' statements resulted in a violation of Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation and that this constitutional error was not harmless. State v. Walters, 2006-NMCA-071, ¶ 1, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645. The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded his case with the instruction that Defendant be tried separately.

  5. State v. Chavez

    144 N.M. 849 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that appellate courts review constitutional claims de novo

    We review constitutional claims such as this de novo. State v. Walters, 2006-NMCA-071, ¶ 23, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645, rev'd on other grounds, 2007-NMSC-050, 142 N.M. 644, 168 P.3d 1068; State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 10, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727. Under Crawford, "[t]he Confrontation Clause is always implicated when `testimonial' statements of an absent witness are admitted."

  6. State v. Silva

    142 N.M. 686 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 3 times
    In Silva, this Court held that a statement given by the declarant to a girlfriend that he had killed someone at the defendant's behest was not a testimonial statement subject to the application of Crawford.

    Since the admission of hearsay can raise issues under the Confrontation Clause which are questions of law, we review this ruling, and Confrontation Clause questions in general, under a de novo standard. State v. Walters, 2006-NMCA-071, ¶ 23, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645, cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-006, 140 N.M. 226, 141 P.3d 1280; State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, 1110, 128 N.M. 410, 993 P.2d 727. We agree with the State that the statement was not testimonial

  7. State v. Verdugo

    142 N.M. 267 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 29 times
    Holding that a robbery conviction was supported by the evidence where the defendant pulled and pulled on victim's purse, attempting to pry it from her, with sufficient force to rip the strap altogether, given an instruction that: "Robbery consists of the theft of anything of value from the person of another or from the immediate control of another, by use or threatened use of force or violence."

    {20} "In determining whether the error was harmless, we must be able to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same in the absence of the error by looking to the effect that the constitutional error had upon the guilty verdict in this particular case." See State v. Walters, 2006-NMCA-071, ¶ 39, 139 N.M. 705, 137 P.3d 645, cert. granted, 2006-NMCERT-006, 140 N.M. 226, 141 P.3d 1280. Constitutional error is not harmless simply because there was substantial evidence, in addition to an unconstitutionally obtained statement, to support the conviction.