Cargando…
Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Supreme Court of New Mexico; 132 N.M. 657; 54 P.3d 61; 2002-NMSC-027. Datos: https://static.case.law/nm/132/cases/0657-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
State v. Roybal, 132 N.M. 657 (Supreme Court of New Mexico, 2002) OPINION MINZNER, Justice. {1} Defendant appeals directly to this Court from a judgment and sentence of life imprisonment plus sixteen years, entered following convictions by a jury of first degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994), and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-28-2 (1979) and Section 30-2-1(A). We have jurisdiction under Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA 2002 and N.M. Const, art. VI, § 2. On appeal, Defendant argues first that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to notice that a portion of a taped statement introduced into evidence referred to Defendant’s prior participation in and conviction for second degree murder in a locally notorious crime. The trial court had ruled before the trial that if Defendant testified, he could not be cross-examined about the prior murder conviction. Second, Defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the error of his trial counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court in allowing the jury to hear these statements deprived him of a fair trial. Although we conclude that defense counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to redact the objectionable material, we conclude that Defendant was not prejudiced thereby, as prejudice has been defined in our case law. As we are not persuaded by either of Defendant’s claims on appeal, we affirm. I. {2} On September 13, 1999, Nicky Cordova was…Fuente: Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library Innovation Lab (static.case.law); Supreme Court of New Mexico; 132 N.M. 657; 54 P.3d 61; 2002-NMSC-027. Datos: https://static.case.law/nm/132/cases/0657-01.json. Opinión judicial de EE.UU. sin restricciones conocidas de uso: CAP levantó las restricciones el 2024-03-01 (prensa); el espejo HF free-law declara cc0-1.0; NO c… Abrir la fuente
Cargando el texto completo…
State v. Roybal, 132 N.M. 657 (Supreme Court of New Mexico, 2002) OPINION MINZNER, Justice. {1} Defendant appeals directly to this Court from a judgment and sentence of life imprisonment plus sixteen years, entered following convictions by a jury of first degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A)(1) (1994), and conspiracy to commit first degree murder, contrary to NMSA 1978, § 30-28-2 (1979) and Section 30-2-1(A). We have jurisdiction under Rule 12-102(A)(1) NMRA 2002 and N.M. Const, art. VI, § 2. On appeal, Defendant argues first that he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his trial counsel failed to notice that a portion of a taped statement introduced into evidence referred to Defendant’s prior participation in and conviction for second degree murder in a locally notorious crime. The trial court had ruled before the trial that if Defendant testified, he could not be cross-examined about the prior murder conviction. Second, Defendant argues that the cumulative effect of the error of his trial counsel, the prosecutor, and the trial court in allowing the jury to hear these statements deprived him of a fair trial. Although we conclude that defense counsel’s performance was deficient in failing to redact the objectionable material, we conclude that Defendant was not prejudiced thereby, as prejudice has been defined in our case law. As we are not persuaded by either of Defendant’s claims on appeal, we affirm. I. {2} On September 13, 1999, Nicky Cordova was…