Driscoll, In the Matter of, 10845
| Decision Date | 28 April 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 10845,10845 |
| Citation | 89 N.M. 541,555 P.2d 136 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Charles DRISCOLL, Attorney at Law. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Disciplinary Proceeding.
This matter coming on for consideration by the Court upon Recommendations and Submission of Record by the Disciplinary Board, and Charles Driscoll appearing in person before the Court; Mr. Chief Justice Oman, Mr. Justice McManus, Mr. Justice Stephenson, Mr. Justice Montoya and Mr. Justice Sosa sitting;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board be and the same are hearby adopted and approved by the Court; that Charles Driscoll be and he hereby is publicly censured by the Supreme Court by reason of his violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6), and engaging in conduct in violation of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(6).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Direct Criminal Contempt Maestas
...attorney, and the conduct meriting the contempt punishment was comparatively more egregious. State v. Driscoll , 1976-NMSC-059, ¶¶ 5-10, 89 N.M. 541, 555 P.2d 136. In Driscoll , an attorney disobeyed a court's order not to mention a witness affidavit during opening argument, and after being......
-
State v. Turner
...682, 685, 601 N.E.2d 1380, 1383 (1992); State v. Gonzalez, 134 N.J.Super. 472, 341 A.2d 694, 697 (1975); see also State v. Driscoll, 89 N.M. 541, 555 P.2d 136, 141 (1976). In this regard, we find that Grant v. State, 213 Tenn. 440, 374 S.W.2d 391, 393 (1964) is both distinguishable and inst......
-
Concha v. Sanchez
...against double jeopardy after Petitioners already had been found in criminal contempt for the same behavior. State v. Driscoll, 89 N.M. 541, 546–47, 555 P.2d 136, 141–42 (1976) (holding that further contempt proceedings after a lawyer was summarily jailed for contempt in open court would co......
-
State v. Day
...That is not the basis for reviewing the evidence; we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. State v. Driscoll, 89 N.M. 541, 555 P.2d 136 (1976); State v. Gonzales, 82 N.M. 388, 482 P.2d 252 Defendant refers us to various portions of the prosecutor's closing argument......