State v. Schultz
279 P. 561, 34 N.M. 214
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Appellant was. convicted of embezzlement.
We find ho merit in the contention based upon the refusal of requested instructions. Their subject-matter was sufficiently included in instructions given.
On cross-examination the court permitted appellant to be asked whether he had not taken mortgaged property out of the state. The ruling was no doubt made on the authority of State v. Bailey, 27 N. M. 145, 198 P. 529, which seems to justify it.
The judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
State v. Schultz, 279 P. 561, 34 N.M. 214 (N.M. 1929).
279 P. 561 (State v. Schultz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
State v. Hargrove
464 P.2d 564 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1970)
State v. Holden
113 P.2d 171 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1941)
State v. Solis
37 P.2d 539 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1934)