 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Contreras8/16/1995
the substantial rights of the accused. . "We must be convinced that admission of the testimony constituted an inJustice that created grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict." Id. (quoting ), cert. denied , 109 N.M. 704, 789 P.2d 1271 (1990)).
24. In this case even if it was error to admit the questionable testimony, evidence supporting Contreras's guilt is overwhelming. This one error does not create any doubt about the firmness of the verdict. The real issues of the case were not obscured by this minor error, and the admission of the evidence did not affect substantial rights of Contreras. Thus we will not use the plain error rule to review the validity of the admission of that testimony.
25. Conclusion. The conviction of felony murder is supported by substantial evidence and is therefore affirmed. Further, the multiple punishment for the felony murder conviction and the underlying felony of armed robbery violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, and thus the armed robbery conviction must be vacated. Finally, admission of testimony regarding previous charges against Contreras did not constitute plain error, and the convictions for unlawful taking of a vehicle and tampering with evidence are affirmed. We leave it to the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the sentences for unlawful taking of a vehicle and tampering with evidence are to run concurrently or consecutively with the sentence for felony murder.
26. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|