State v. McDonald
Citations
- 21 N.M. 110
- 152 P. 1139
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE -COURT.</p> <p>1. That the special prosecutor, in his opening statement, mentioned facts which he intended to prove, but did - not prove, is not misconduct justifying reversal, where the circumstances are not such as to show that the prosecutor intended to influence the jury by false statements or had extreme disregard for .the truth. ,</p> <p>P.-113</p> <p>2. The verdict of-a jury.will not be disturbed where there^ is any substantial - evidence to support it. P. 114</p> <p>3. A question not jurisdictional■ cannot be raised the .first time on appeal. P. 114</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that a prosecutor’s be difficult to prove without Mr. Baca’s testimony, and not that the State definitively knew that Mr. Baca would not testify. 9 1 “overstatement” during opening statement is “[u]sually . . . prejudicial” to the state 2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Hanna, Parker, Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
7 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. TorresNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1970-01-30· cited 61×
- Pueblo v. Fournier SampedroSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1958-06-14· cited 32×
- State v. GarciaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1971-07-30· cited 27×
- State v. GilbertNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1982-11-17· cited 18×
- State v. BorregoNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1948-06-23· cited 16×
- State v. HodnettNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1971-06-25
- People v. Fournier SampedroSupreme Court of Puerto Rico· 1958-06-14
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.