Opinion · New Mexico Supreme Court

State v. Dillon

34 N.M. 366

Type: Opinion
Court: New Mexico Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New Mexico
Date: 1929-10-01
Topic: general

How later courts describe this case

establishing that New Mexico constitution does not give a defendant a state constitutional right to suppress evidence obtained in violation of art. II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution
refusing to adopt the federal exclusionary rule of Weeks

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. Dillon. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 17 opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT Appellant was convicted of the possession of intoxicating liquor for sale. The only error here urged is in the overruling of his motion to return to him and to suppress as evidence certain liquors which the sheriff had seized under a search warrant which the trial court found, and the Attorney General apparently concedes, to have been illegal.

[1] The overruling of the motion was based upon the trial court's understanding that this court, in State v. Hammond, No. 3010, had laid down the rule "that evidence, however obtained, whether legally or illegally, is admissible." The opinion referred to has not been published; the cause having become moot by reason of the death of the appellant during the pendency of a motion for rehearing. Since it is the sole basis of the decision, and the single point of difference here, we cannot do better than insert it in this opinion. It follows:

Criminal Law 16CJ § 1097 p. 567 n. 88; § 1110 p. 570 n. 90. *Page 367