 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hernandez1/14/1993
is that evidence which is acceptable to a reasonable mind as adequate support for a Conclusion." . We view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict and resolve all conflicts and indulge all inferences in favor of upholding the verdict. . We may not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the jury. Id.
In light of the above standard of review, Defendant's contention of insufficient evidence to support his guilty verdicts must fail. The evidence adduced at trial favorable to supporting the verdicts is as follows. Salaiz testified that Defendant told him (Salaiz) that he (Defendant) had entered the victim's apartment to steal something to sell to obtain money to purchase drugs. Salaiz also testified that Defendant related that, while in the apartment, he encountered the victim who started to scream, he panicked, and then he killed the victim. The State also introduced expert testimony that hairs found at the murder scene matched known hair samples of Defendant. While Defendant attacked Salaiz's credibility and the validity of the hair identification, our duty on appeal is neither to substitute our judgment for that of the jury nor reweigh the evidence. As indicated by the verdicts, the jury believed Salaiz's testimony regarding the murder and burglary and could have found that the hair analysis, while not conclusive in establishing Defendant's identity as the murderer, linked Defendant to the murder. Thus, as the above Discussion indicates, substantial evidence supports Defendant's conviction.
XI
Defendant's final argument is that the above claims of error, taken cumulatively, amount to a violation of his right to due process. The doctrine of cumulative error "requires reversal of a defendant's conviction when the cumulative impact of errors which occurred at trial was so prejudicial that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial." . In the instant case, the only error committed by the trial court was its failure to anticipate our opinion in Ortega, which changed the law regarding felony murder. Our review of the record indicates that Defendant received a fair trial; therefore, we do not find cumulative error.
In accordance with the foregoing Discussion, the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|