State v. Valenzuela

New Mexico Court of Appeals

State v. Valenzuela

492 P.2d 1008, 83 N.M. 391

CourtNew Mexico Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 22, 1971

DocketNo. 791

StatusPublished

This text of 492 P.2d 1008 (State v. Valenzuela) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New Mexico Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Valenzuela, 492 P.2d 1008, 83 N.M. 391 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

SUTIN, Judge.

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for burglary. Section 40A-16-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 6). Defendant claims he did not voluntarily and understanding^ waive his constitutional right to remain silent; consequently his admissions were inadmissible at trial.

There is evidence that on arrest, the police officer read to defendant the “Miranda warnings” and the defendant stated that he understood them. His constitutional right to remain silent was not violated. His admissions could properly be found to be voluntary and were admissible at trial. State v. Pace, 80 N.M. 364, 456 P.2d 197 (1969).

Affirmed.

It is so ordered.

WOOD, C. J., and PIENDLEY, J., concur. COWAN, J., not participating.

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