State v. Riley

New Mexico Supreme Court

State v. Riley

55 P.2d 743, 40 N.M. 132

CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 9, 1936

DocketNo. 4166.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 55 P.2d 743 (State v. Riley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Riley, 55 P.2d 743, 40 N.M. 132 (N.M. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

BICKLEY, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of horse stealing. The evidence substantiates the verdict. Besides assailing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant complains of the court’s denial of his motion for continuance on account of absence of a witness. No facts were pleaded in the motion showing reasonable ground for belief that the attendance of the witness would be procured at the next court term. The motion contained no allegation that the defendant knew of no other witness by whom the facts could be fully proved. These defects defeat the motion. See Kent v. Favor, 3 N.M.(Gild.) 347, 5 P. 470; State v. Probert, 19 N.M. 13, 140 P. 1108.

There was no error in permitting the defendant, a witness in his own behalf, to be asked on cross-examination whether he had been convicted of a felony and served a term in the penitentiary. See section 45-606, Comp.St.1929, which in part is as follows : “A witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor.”

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed and it is so ordered.

SADLER,, C. J., and HUDSPETH, BRICE, and ZINN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

BICKLEY, Justice.

Defendant was convicted of horse stealing. The evidence substantiates the verdict. Besides assailing the sufficiency of the evidence, appellant complains of the court’s denial of his motion for continuance on account of absence of a witness. No facts were pleaded in the motion showing reasonable ground for belief that the attendance of the witness would be procured at the next court term. The motion contained no allegation that the defendant knew of no other witness by whom the facts could be fully proved. These defects defeat the motion. See Kent v. Favor, 3 N.M.(Gild.) 347, 5 P. 470; State v. Probert, 19 N.M. 13, 140 P. 1108.

There was no error in permitting the defendant, a witness in his own behalf, to be asked on cross-examination whether he had been convicted of a felony and served a term in the penitentiary. See section 45-606, Comp.St.1929, which in part is as follows : “A witness may be questioned as to whether he has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor.”

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed and it is so ordered.

SADLER,, C. J., and HUDSPETH, BRICE, and ZINN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 P.2d 743, 40 N.M. 132, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-riley-nm-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack