State v. Bailey
Citations
- 27 N.M. 145
- 198 P. 529
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Appellant cannot predicate error upon the action of the trial court in improperly overruling his challenge to a juryman, when at the final impaneling of the jury he had not exhausted his peremptory challenges and the objectionable juryman was not forced upon him. P. 152</p> <p>2. Evidence of threats is admissable in a case of homicide, although no one is definitely designated. P. 152</p> <p>3. The reputation of the deceased as a man of peaceable character is competent evidence on behalf of the prosecution after such character has been attacked and put in evidence by the defense. P. 153</p> <p>4. Proof of a witness’ particular overt acts of wrongdoing is ordinarily relevant as impeaching evidence. The extent of such examination rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. P.' 154</p> <p>5. Where instructions given are correct and cover the same ground as those requested, or where those requested incorrectly state the law as applicable to the case, the instructions requested are properly refused. ' P. 155</p> <p>ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.</p> <p>6. In a prosecution for murder, an instruction held fully to cover the defense of accidental discharge of the gun in defendant’s hands thereby killing deceased. P. 158</p> <p>7. In a prosecution for murder, where the defense of accidental killing was interposed, an-instruction that if the jury believed that deceased was .accidentally killed, or if they entertain a reasonable doubt thereon, they should acquit, held correctly refused, as not including all necessary-elements. ' P. 158</p> <p>8. In a prosecution for murder, where the defense of accidental killing was interposed, an instruction in the exact language of Code 1915, § 1472, held properly refused, as being inapplicable and as being abstract. P. 160</p> <p>9. In a prosecution for murder, an instruction held not ■ prejudicially erroneous, although confusing the doctrine of self-defense and the doctrine of defense of habitation. P.
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- “[I]t is not true that a [person] may kill another in his [or her] house when under the same circumstances of danger, or apparent danger, to person or property, he [or she] would not be justified in killing outside [the] house.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Parker, Raynolds, Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. HamricWest Virginia Supreme Court· 1966-07-15· cited 107×
- State v. BoyettNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2008-04-28· cited 73×
- State v. HargroveNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1970-01-09· cited 69×
- State v. PedroncelliNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1984-01-12· cited 37×
- State v. CouchNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1946-12-31· cited 33×
- Pauly Ex Rel. Estate of Pauly v. WhiteTenth Circuit· 2016-02-09· cited 30×
- LaBarge v. StewartNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1972-08-18· cited 28×
- Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1961-04-07· cited 28×
- State v. GarciaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1971-07-30· cited 27×
- State v. StewartNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1929-02-09· cited 27×
- State v. ClevengerNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1921-11-29· cited 25×
- State v. HoldenNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1941-04-28· cited 23×
- State v. BaxendaleNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 2016-03-02· cited 18×
- Schultz v. YoungNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1933-07-24· cited 18×
- State v. BorregoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1948-06-23· cited 16×
- State v. CostalesNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1933-01-09· cited 14×
- State v. ToddNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1923-04-11· cited 14×
- State v. WelchNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1933-09-29· cited 12×
- State v. LovelessNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1935-03-11· cited 12×
- State v. BrockNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1952-04-22· cited 7×
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- People v. DurrantCalifornia Supreme Court· 1897-03-03· cited 204×
- State v. VanceWashington Supreme Court· 1902-08-26· cited 83×
- Ex parte BanksSupreme Court of Alabama· 1856-01-15· cited 28×
- Cunningham v. SpringerNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1905-09-01· cited 21×
- State v. SummerSupreme Court of South Carolina· 1899-04-18· cited 18×
- Miera v. Territory of New MexicoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1905-06-27· cited 13×
- State v. SmithNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1918-07-15· cited 8×
- State v. MartinezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1919-05-08· cited 2×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.