State v. Moraga
| Decision Date | 02 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 676,676 |
| Citation | 487 P.2d 178,1971 NMCA 103,82 N.M. 750 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pablo Victor MORAGA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Moraga was convicted and sentenced for second degree murder. He seeks a reversal on two points, (1) the circumstances of rape by one Carrillo, a witness, should have been admitted into evidence as bearing on the state of mind of Moraga, and (2) the trial court failed to adequately instruct on the elements of murder in the second degree and the failure was jurisdictional.
The Brief in Chief states:
On cross-examination of Carrillo, the defense brought out there had been a prior fight between defendant and Carrillo. The defense also brought out that Carrillo had been convicted of rape prior to the killing, the date of the rape and of the conviction, and that at the time of trial, Carrillo was an inmate of the penitentiary.
The State objected to further questioning concerning the rape. The objection was sustained. Defendant contends he '* * * was entitled to present evidence of the violent nature of the witness Carrillo, and was entitled to develop the specific violent acts of the witness Carrillo, * * *' This contention is made on the basis it was pertinent to defendant's state of mind at the time of the shootings.
In considering the admissibility of violent acts against third persons (which is the situation here in regard to the rape), State v. Ardoin, 28 N.M. 641, 216 P. 1048 (1923) holds that a specific violent act is admissible if it '* * * would legitimately and reasonably either affect the defendant's apprehensions or throw light on the question of aggression, or upon the conduct or motives of the parties at the time of the affray, * * *' Ardoin, supra, recognizes that the holding permits the presentation of collateral issues and that the extent that the evidence goes into collateral issues is to be considered by the court '* * * in exercising the discretion necessary to determine the admissibility of this class of evidence in any particular case. * * *'
Here, the specific act of violence, the rape, had been admitted without objection. The details of the rape were sufficiently collateral so that we cannot say, as a matter of law, that the trial court erred in refusing to permit them to be developed. Further, the details of the rape could not have been pertinent to defendant's state of mind when there is no showing, and no claim, that defendant knew or had heard of any of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Alderette
...issue and the extent that evidence on a collateral issue is to be permitted is within the trial court's discretion. State v. Moraga, 82 N.M. 750, 487 P.2d 178 (Ct.App.1971). The trial court pointed out that the offense report 'was not only hearsay, but much of it was hearsay on hearsay.' Th......
-
State v. Fuentes
...in the statute. State v. Walsh, 81 N.M. 65, 463 P.2d 41 (Ct.App.1969). Thus there was no jurisdictional defect. State v. Moraga, 82 N.M. 750, 487 P.2d 178 (Ct.App.1971). Since the defendant did not object to the instruction on general intent and had failed to show prejudice amounting to fun......
-
State v. Marquez
...of the decedent, a collateral issue, rests in the discretion of the trial court. There was no abuse of discretion. State v. Moraga, 82 N.M. 750, 487 P.2d 178 (Ct.App.1971); State v. Alderette, 86 N.M. 600, 526 P.2d 194 The rules governing the admissibility of such evidence mentioned in Alde......
-
State v. Davis
...be permitted is within the trial court's discretion." State v. Alderette, 86 N.M. 600, 526 P.2d 194 (Ct.App.1974); State v. Moraga, 82 N.M. 750, 487 P.2d 178 (Ct.App.1971); see State v. Marquez, 87 N.M. 57, 529 P.2d 283 (Ct.App. 1974). There was no abuse of discretion under the circumstance......