State v. Minns
| Decision Date | 27 March 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 432,432 |
| Citation | 467 P.2d 1000,1970 NMCA 42,81 N.M. 428 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jacob Leroy MINNS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Defendant was convicted of having indecently handled and touched a girl under the age of sixteen years. The case was affirmed in State v. Minns, 80 N.M. 269, 454 P.2d 355 (Ct.App.1969). Thereafter defendant filed an application for post-conviction relief under Rule 93 (§ 21--1--1(93), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967)).
The trial court in its order stated that the files and records of the case conclusively show that petitioner (defendant) was not entitled to the relief prayed for and accordingly denied the motion from which this appeal followed.
Points relied upon for reversal are five in number.
'Point I: Under the circumstances of this case appellant was prejudiced by the giving of the so-called 'shot-gun instruction', thus denying him a fair trial by jury.
'Point II: The 'shotgun instruction' given contained additional wording never before approved in New Mexico which denied appellant the right to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
'Point III: The newly discovered evidence contained in affidavit form goes to the very credibility of the complaining witness.
'Point IV: The statute under which appellant was convicted denies him of due process as it applies to him because of uncertainty and vagueness.
'Point V: Testimony of acts taking place outside of the scope of the indictment served to inflame the jury to the prejudice of the appellant and to deny him of due process.'
The Points I, II, IV and V are addressed to matters considered and found without merit in State v. Minns, supra. The Supreme Court and this court have uniformly held that a Rule 93 motion may not be used to reconsider matters which have been considered and disposed of on appeal. State v. Blackwell, 79 N.M. 230, 441 P.2d 759 (1968); State v. Williams, 78 N.M. 431, 432 P.2d 396 (1967); State v. Selgado, 78 N.M. 165, 429 P.2d 363 (1967); State v. McAfee, 80 N.M. 739, 460 P.2d 1023 (Ct.App.1969).
Point III, while indicating that it relates to newly discovered evidence, actually asserts that the conviction resulted in whole or in part from perjured testimony. In support of this assertion an affidavit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Case v. Hatch
...clemency under NMSA 1953, Section 31-21-17 (1955) and Article V, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution. See State v. Minns, 81 N.M. 428, 429, 467 P.2d 1000, 1001 (Ct.App.1970). However, executive clemency as an exclusive remedy has been called into question by at least two of this Court'......
-
State v. Hodnett
...attorney intentionally used perjured testimony. State v. Hodnett,79 N.M. 761, 449 P.2d 669 (Ct.App.1968). See also State v. Minns, 81 N.M. 428, 467 P.2d 1000 (Ct.App.1970). C. Defendant asserts that his conviction resulted from fundamental error but fails to point out in what way the fundam......
-
State v. Hibbs
...is based on defendant's assertions that various witnesses lied when they testified. Such a claim is insufficient--State v. Minns, 81 N.M. 428, 467 P.2d 1000 (Ct.App.1970); State v. Hodnett, 79 N.M. 761, 449 P.2d 669 (Ct.App.1968). The claim that the trial judge was prejudiced, in that he co......
- State v. Chavez