Barraza v. State

Citation109 N.M. 704,789 P.2d 1271
PartiesBarraza (Sean) v. State NO. 19,073
Decision Date18 April 1990
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

Certiorari Denied.

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • State v. Alberico
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 30 Agosto 1993
    ...... Page 207 . the psychologist's repeatedly expressed preference for the neutral term of post-traumatic stress disorder." Id. .         The Court of Appeals has held that PTSD or RTS testimony is admissible for purposes other than to prove that a crime was committed. In State v. Barraza, 110 N.M. 45, 791 P.2d 799 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271 (1990), the Court of Appeals again did not directly address the admissibility of RTS in general because the issue had not been preserved below, but the Court held that RTS testimony was relevant to establish the element ......
  • State v. Arredondo-Soto
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 2 Junio 2016
    ...... See Rule 11-103 (E) NMRA; Rule 12-216 (B) NMRA. In either case, admission of the evidence must cause an injustice that creates grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict. See State v . Barraza , 1990-NMCA-026, ¶ 17, 110 N.M. 45, 791 P.2d 799, cert . denied , 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271 (1990). "The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so Page 17 doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the ......
  • State v. Gutierrez
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 7 Febrero 1995
    ...... Defendant, however, did not raise on appeal the issue considered in Williamson, and there is no indication that the issue was raised below. In this circumstance we will not rely on Williamson to reverse. See State v. Barraza......
  • State v. Contreras, 21455
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 16 Agosto 1995
    ...... State v. Lucero, 116 N.M. 450, 453, 863 P.2d 1071, 1074 (1993). "We must be convinced that admission of the testimony constituted an injustice that created grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict." Id. (quoting State v. Barraza, 110 N.M. 45, 49, 791 P.2d 799, 803 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271 (1990)).         In this case even if it was error to admit the questionable testimony, evidence supporting Contreras's guilt is overwhelming. This one error does not create any doubt about the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT