Each of the defendants in the above-entitled causes was convicted under sections 1 and 2, c. 118, Laws, of 1923, which, as we have just held in State v. Armstrong, No. 2947, 242 P. 440, not as yet [officially] reported, are violative of section 18, art. 4, of the Constitution of this state. The judgment in each of said causes must therefore be reversed and remanded, with direction to discharge the accused.
31 N.M. 275 •
242 P. 449
[242 Pac. 449.
Dec. 14, 1925.]
STATE, Appellee, v. Clay DUNLAP et al., Appellants. SAME v. A. S. STEWART, Appellant. SAME v. Claude WELLS, Appellant. SAME v. E. A. SHEDOUDY, Appellant. SAME v. Dominic CUNICO, Appellant. SAME v. Robert L. BLEDSOE, Appellant. SAME v. J. H. SINGER, Appellant.
(No. 2968.)
(No. 2969.)
(No. 2979.)
(No. 2983.)
(No. 2993.)
(No. 3040.)
(No. 3041.)
O. O. Askren, of Santa Fe, for appellant Dunlap.
*276Roy Prentice, of Tucnmcari, for appellant Stewart.
R. A. Ptentice, of Tncumcari, for appellant Wells.
Fred J. Voorhees, of Raton, for appellant Shedoudy.
PI. A. Kiker, of Raton, for appellant Cunico.
Fitzhugh & Fitzhugh, of Clovis, for appellants Bledsoe and Singer:
J. W. Armstrong, Atty. Gen., and J. P. Bujac, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
State v. Dunlap
31 N.M. 275 •
242 P. 449
Case Details
31 N.M. 275
242 P. 449
References
Nothing yet... Still searching!
Nothing yet... Still searching!