Barraza v. State
Citation | 109 N.M. 704,789 P.2d 1271 |
Parties | Barraza (Sean) v. State NO. 19,073 |
Decision Date | 18 April 1990 |
Court | Supreme Court of New Mexico |
Certiorari Denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial5 cases
-
State v. Alberico
...... 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
...... 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
...... 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
...... 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