Skip to main content

State v. Starr

Citations

  • 24 N.M. 180
  • 173 P. 674

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. It is a general rule of criminal evidence tbat on the trial of a person accused of crime proof of a distinct, independent offense is inadmissible. P. 185</p> <p>2. Generally speaking, evidence of other crimes is competent to prove the specific crime charged when it tends to establish: (1) Motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the other; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.</p> <p>P. 185</p> <p>3. All objections to the admission or exclusion of evidence, its competency, relevancy or sufficiency, and as to the competency of witnesses and their examination, must be made in the trial court. They cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. P. 188</p> <p>4. Whether a sheriff is justified in pursuing and arresting, without warant, one who has been confined in jail and has broken therefrom, does not depend upon whether the imprisonment was legal, but on whether the officer has reasonable cause to suspect the commission of a felony. P. 191</p> <p>5. Where several persons are jointly indicted, they cannot claim separate trial as a matter of right; this is a matter of sound discretion, to be exercised by the court with all due regard and tenderness to prisoners, according to the known humanity of our criminal jurisprudence; and an order refusing such trial will not be reviewed. P. 191</p> <p>6. The granting or denying of a motion for continuance is within the discretion of the trial court, and unless such discretion has been abused to the injury of the defendant, the denial of such motion will not constitute error. P. 191</p> <p>7. There was no error in the court having allowed the jury to separate, before the case was submitted to them, in the absence of a showing that accused was prejudiced thereby.</p> <p>P. 192</p> <p>8. The limitatio

Judges: Being, Hanna, Parker, Roberts

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

27 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

15 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.