Case Title: State v. Vigil

Citation: 516 P.2d 1118, 85 N.M. 735

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1973-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
516 P.2d 1118 (1973) 85 N.M. 735 STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Leo VIGIL, Respondent. No. 9864. Supreme Court of New Mexico. December 14, 1973. David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Randolph B. Felker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe., for petitioner. William C. Erwin, Raton, for respondent. OMAN, Justice. This cause is before us on a writ of certiorari directed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals. The writ was issued solely for the purpose of clarifying our opinion in State v. Felter, 85 N.M. 619, 515 P.2d 138 (1973). Our opinion in the Felter case has apparently been construed by some as requiring a showing by a defendant in a criminal case of a particularized need for the grand jury testimony of a witness who has actually appeared and testified for the State at the criminal trial. This is not what was said or meant by us in the Felter case. However, we apparently created some confusion by the language we used in that portion of our opinion in which we expressed our disagreement with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in State v. Sparks, 85 N.M. 429, 512 P.2d 1265 (Ct. App. 1973), insofar as it was stated therein that Mascarenas v. State, 80 N.M. 537, 458 P.2d 789 (1969), modifies State v. Tackett, 78 N.M. 450, 432 P.2d 415, 20 A.L.R.3d 1 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 1026, 88 S. Ct. 1414, 20 L. Ed. 2d 283 (1968). In an earlier case we held: There can be no valid reason for requiring the defendant to show a particularized need for the grand jury testimony of a witness who has already appeared and testified publicly in the criminal trial. In this regard we quote and reaffirm the following from our opinion in State v. Felter, supra, at 85 N.M. 620, 515 P.2d 139: The decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed. It is so ordered. McMANUS, C.J., and STEPHENSON, MONTOYA and MARTINEZ, JJ., concur.