State v. Cooley
Citations
- 19 N.M. 91
- 140 P. 1111
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Between the two offenses, murder in the second degree and voluntary manslaughter, the drunkenness of the offender forms no legitimate matter of inquiry; if the killing is unlawful and voluntary, and without deliberate premeditation, the offense is murder in the second degree, malice being implied, unless the provocation were of such character as would reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter, for which offense a drunken man is equally responsible as a sober one.</p> <p>P. 102</p> <p>2. Where a defendant, charged with first degree murder, .relies upon the defense of intoxication for the purpose of reducing the grade of the offense to murder in the second ■degree, he is not required to establish the fact of his intoxication, or, that at the time he inflicted the fatal injuries he was so deeply intoxicated as to be incapable of forming in his mind a deliberate premeditated design to do the killing, beyond a reasonable doubt. All that he is required to •do, is to introduce such evidence as will raise in the minds •of the jurors a reasonable doubt as to such facts in order to reduce the grade of the offense to murder in the second «degree.</p> <p>P. 104</p> <p>3. It is improper for the court, in the trial of a criminal ■case, to permit the district attorney to ask witnesses if he, the district attorney, did not instruct said witnesses not to talk to anyone about the cause, and if they did not, in violation of such instructions, talk to the attorney for the defendant about the 'facts in the case; and, where the court •erroneously permits such questions to be asked and answered, it should, upon request, instruct the jury that the district attorney had no right to forbid witnesses talking to the attorney for the defendant, about the facts in the case, or to enforce such an order. P. 108</p> <p>4. Where mere descriptive language is inadequate to convey to the jury the precise facts, or their bearing on the issue, the description by the w
Judges: Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
15 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. CamposNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1996-05-30· cited 143×
- State v. BalderamaNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2004-03-01· cited 85×
- State v. WilliamsNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1966-07-18· cited 71×
- State v. MooreNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1938-01-20· cited 63×
- Pavlos Ex Rel. Pavlos v. Albuquerque National BankNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1971-06-18· cited 34×
- State v. NevaresNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1932-01-27· cited 30×
- State v. JacksonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1924-06-30· cited 24×
- State v. AnchetaNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1915-01-09· cited 20×
- State v. TapiaNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1970-01-12· cited 19×
- State v. BriganceNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1926-06-29· cited 18×
- State v. MontoyaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1978-05-16· cited 14×
- New York Life Ins. v. MasonNinth Circuit· 1921-04-04· cited 13×
- State v. LopezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1973-11-21· cited 11×
- State v. AragonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1930-10-08· cited 10×
- Skala v. New York Life Ins.New Mexico Supreme Court· 1918-04-24· cited 7×
Cites
6 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Graham v. Pennsylvania Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1891-01-05· cited 67×
- Commonwealth v. EylerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1907-04-15· cited 40×
- State v. TatroSupreme Court of Vermont· 1878-01-15· cited 28×
- People v. BelenciaCalifornia Supreme Court· 1863-07-01· cited 22×
- People v. LangtonCalifornia Supreme Court· 1885-08-28· cited 11×
- State v. EdwardsSupreme Court of North Carolina· 1893-02-15· cited 11×
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.