State v. Barnett
Opinion
An information was brought against defendants charging they entered upon posted premises for the purpose of hunting birds, in violation of Chap. 43^-05, N.M.S.’ A., 1941 ■ Compilation. It was stipulated by the Assistant District Attorney and counsel for defendants that the premises were posted by publication and notices in English-only and that said lands were not posted ,by publication and notices in the Spanish language in accordance with the provisions of said Chap. 43-405, and for this omission defendants filed a motion to quash the' information. The defendants have appealed to this court from an adverse ruling by the trial court on said motion.
An appeal does not lie -to this court from an order overruling a motion to quash an information in the absence of express statutory -authority therefor. A careful- review of our statutes discloses no provision for such an appeal. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. However, the defendants may- preserve their objection to the information and bring the case before us in the event of their conviction and sentence in the trial court.
It Is So Ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
238 P.2d 694 (State v. Barnett) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.