 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Hernandez1/14/1993
over, we do not inquire as to how many attorneys are employed to represent a criminal defendant but rather examine whether he was adequately represented. . While trial counsel failed to locate two witnesses that Defendant argues were critical to establish his alibi defense, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the potential witnesses were willing to testify and would have given favorable evidence. ), cert. denied, 473 U.S. 907, 105 S. Ct. 3532, 87 L. Ed. 2d 656 (1985); . Furthermore, counsel introduced other alibi witness testimony. Our review of the record satisfies us that Defendant was not denied effective assistance of counsel.
III
The next issue that we address is whether the trial court erred when it allowed Detective Bruce to testify after he remained in the courtroom during other witnesses' testimony at the preliminary hearing and then again at trial. At trial, Defendant moved to exclude Bruce's testimony. Citing SCRA 1986, 11-615; ; and ), cert. denied, 111 N.M. 164, 803 P.2d 253 (1991), Defendant contends that, by allowing Bruce to hear the testimony of other witnesses, his testimony was tainted and that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exclude Bruce's testimony. We disagree.
Under SCRA 1986, 11-615, a party may request that the trial Judge exclude witnesses from the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. However, the rule does not allow the trial Judge to exclude "a person whose presence is shown by a party to be essential to the presentation of his cause." Id. The trial court has broad discretion in the application of . We will not disturb the decision of the trial court absent a clear abuse of this discretion and prejudice to the complaining party. State ex rel. State Hwy. Dep't v. Page 19} First National Bank in .
In the instant case, we find neither an abuse of discretion nor prejudice to Defendant. Bruce was the police officer charged with investigating this murder case. As part of his duties as the investigating officer, Bruce had on prior occasions interviewed all of the witnesses and already knew what they would say. If hearing the testimony of the other witnesses caused Bruce to change his testimony at trial, defense counsel could impeach that testimony with Bruce's investigative reports and testimony from the pre-trial hearing. In addition, as the investigating officer, Bruce remained at counsel table to assist the State in presenting its case. While exclusion of similar testimony may be appropriate under different circumstances, under the facts of this case the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
IV
The next issue that we address is whether the trial court erred when it admitted various photographs and a videotape of the victim's apartment. Prior to trial, Defendant moved to exclude the videotape and photographs contending that the probative value of this evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect. See SCRA 1986, 11-403. Defendant argues that the photographs and videotape showed "numerous images of the body of the victim" that made this evidence prejudicial and inflammatory. In addition, Defendant argues that the evidence was not relevant because the condition and position of the body as well as the fact that the victim's death was not accidental were not at issue in the case. See SCRA 1986, 11-402 (irrelevant evidence is inadmissible). Defendant concludes that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to exclude this evidence.
The trial court may, in its discretion, exclude relevant evidence, such as photographs and videotapes, if the evid
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.
|
|