State v. Parks
Citations
- 25 N.M. 395
- 183 P. 433
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Cross-examination of Charley Parks held not error, consonant to doctrine in State v. Perkins, 21 N. M. 135, 153 Pac. 258, that overt acts of wrongdoing on part of witness are relevant as impeaching evidence, but cannot be shown outside the examination of the witness; the extent of such examination resting largely in the discretion of the court.</p> <p>P: 399</p> <p>2. Evidence examined, and held, court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury to find John Parks not guilty.</p> <p>P. 399</p> <p>3. Instructions examined, and held: (1) That so far as same are reviewable they correctly state the law; and (2) that no proper exception -was taken to certain instructions.</p> <p>P. 399</p> <p>4. Requested instruction held erroneous, in that it is not sufficient to justify the taking of human lire that a person has reason to apprehend death or great bodily harm to himself unless he killed his assailant. He must entertain such belief and must act upon it. P. 400</p> <p>5. Action of the court in instructing jury on second degree murder held proper, notwithstanding contention of the state that the killing was murder in the first degree. P. 400</p> <p>6. Rulings upon questions asked a witness on cross-examination, although erroneous, will not constitute ground for reversal, where no substantial prejudice results. Held, appellant suffered no prejudice. P. 401</p> <p>7. Error in overruling an objection to a question will not constitute ground for reversal, where the question- was not answered. P. 401</p> <p>8. It is improper for the court, during the progress of the trial, to make any unnecessary comments, or to take any unnecessary action, which might tend to prejudice the rights of either of the parties litigant; but, when it becomes unavoidable, the court has the right, even in the presence of the jury, to impose a fine upon any person connected with the trial, and such action cannot of itself cause a mistrial, merely because it might hav
Judges: Holloman, Raynolds, Roberts
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- State v. DayNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1978-02-07· cited 85×
- State v. MooreNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1938-01-20· cited 63×
- State v. WorleyNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1984-01-13· cited 58×
- State v. MartinezArizona Supreme Court· 1948-10-04· cited 35×
- State v. HarrisonNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1970-05-28· cited 33×
- State v. NevaresNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1932-01-27· cited 30×
- State v. AnayaNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1968-03-15· cited 29×
- State v. RoybalNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1928-11-17· cited 25×
- State v. JacksonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1924-06-30· cited 24×
- State v. RomeroNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1963-09-16· cited 21×
- State v. CarpioNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1921-07-20· cited 20×
- State v. NajarNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1980-02-19· cited 17×
- State v. ErgenbrightNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1973-02-23· cited 16×
- State v. CaputoNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1980-02-19· cited 14×
- Davis Carruth v. Valley Mercantile, Etc., Co.New Mexico Supreme Court· 1928-02-07· cited 12×
- State v. CasausNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1963-10-28· cited 11×
- State v. GilbertNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1933-07-12· cited 11×
- State v. ThayerNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1969-09-05· cited 10×
- State v. AragonNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1930-10-08· cited 10×
- State v. GonzalesNew Mexico Court of Appeals· 1979-08-30· cited 9×
Cites
3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
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.