State v. Holloway
Citations
- 19 N.M. 528
- 146 P. 1066
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. No alleged errors, unless they are jurisdictional, will be considered, except those which are set out in the motion fora new trial. P. 532</p> <p>2. The common law rule upon the right to a trial by jury-of the visne or neighborhood, if that be the rule in its strictest sense, has been long modified by legislation permitting-a change of venue where an impartial jury was not obtainable in the county where the alleged crime was committed.</p> <p>P. 542</p> <p>3. Where a trial by an impartial jury can be secured in the county where the crime is committed, the accused can not be deprived of a trial there, even under the sanction of our legislation upon the subject of change of venue.</p> <p>P. 543</p> <p>4. The constitutional guaranty of a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, is not of a right to be tried in the county, but in the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, if an impartial jury can be secured therein.</p> <p>P. 545</p> <p>5. The power conferred upon district courts by this statute is one which ought to be exercised with great care and deliberation; and a change of venue, on behalf of the people, should be made only after a showing, which convinces the court that public sentiment is in such a state as to render-improbable a fair and impartial trial.</p> <p>P. 546</p> <p>6. Held: By Sec. 26, of Chap. 57, Laws of 1907, it is provided that the stenographer shall file the transcript of testimony with the clerk of the court in which the action was; tried, and thereupon either party may give five days notice to the opposite party of his intention to apply to the judge to have the transcript signed and sealed as a bill of exceptions.</p> <p>P. 548</p> <p>7. The facts urged in support of a motion for a new trial upon the ground that the jury was allowed to separate, unsupported by proof of such facts by affidavit
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that the State has a right to a venue change in order to secure a fair trial “assuming that statutory authority for a change of venue exists”
- “[CJommencing with 1851, down to the present, there had prevailed a consistent legislative policy favoring changes of venue to both sides in criminal cases.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hanna
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State Ex Rel. Bliss v. GreenwoodNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1957-08-26· cited 88×
- State v. LopezNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1973-04-13· cited 60×
- State v. HouseNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1999-02-24· cited 59×
- State v. ValdezNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1972-04-10· cited 33×
- State v. VictorianNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1973-01-19· cited 32×
- State v. ArcherNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1927-01-06· cited 29×
- State Ex Rel. Sullivan v. PattersonArizona Supreme Court· 1946-01-28· cited 27×
- Wafai v. PeopleSupreme Court of Colorado· 1988-01-25· cited 19×
- Smith v. StateNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1968-09-09· cited 19×
- State v. TijerinaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1972-12-22· cited 18×
- State Ex Rel. Tittmann v. HayNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1936-07-28· cited 12×
- Cook v. AndingNew Mexico Supreme Court· 2008-06-04· cited 11×
- In re OberstSupreme Court of Kansas· 1931-06-06· cited 10×
- Mast v. Superior CourtArizona Supreme Court· 1967-05-17· cited 9×
- State v. PinoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1916-05-01· cited 7×
- State v. RuckerNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1916-07-18· cited 7×
- State v. HouseNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1998-01-14· cited 5×
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Barry v. TrauxNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1904-05-21· cited 49×
- Wheeler v. StateWisconsin Supreme Court· 1869-02-15· cited 38×
- People v. PetersonMichigan Supreme Court· 1892-07-28· cited 26×
- State ex rel. Scott v. CrinklawNebraska Supreme Court· 1894-06-05· cited 23×
- In re NelsonSouth Dakota Supreme Court· 1902-03-19· cited 22×
- People v. FuhrmannMichigan Supreme Court· 1895-01-22· cited 22×
- Osborn v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas· 1867-06-15· cited 21×
- Hewitt v. StateSupreme Court of Florida· 1901-01-15· cited 20×
- Commonwealth v. DavidsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky· 1891-01-24· cited 13×
- Zinn v. District CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court· 1908-01-11· cited 9×
- Glinnan v. Judge of Recorder's CourtMichigan Supreme Court· 1913-02-19· cited 9×
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.