green
Positive treatment
6.4 score
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Stevens
See Maestas II, 2007-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 2, 6-7 . {20} The elements of CSP II-felony were next considered in State v. Moore, 2011-NMCA- 089, 150 N.M. 512 , 263 P.3d 289 , cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-008 , 268 P.3d 513 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Stevens
See Maestas II, 2007-NMSC-001, ¶¶ 2, 6-7 . {20} The elements of CSP II-felony were next considered in State v. Moore, 2011-NMCA-089 , 150 N.M. 512 , 263 P.3d 289 , cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-008 , 268 P.3d 513 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Maples
Rule 11-404(B)(2) lists a certain number of purposes for which other acts evidence may be admissible, but the enumerated purposes are not exclusive, and “another purpose” can be established so long as it is “relevant to an issue besides the inference that the [person] acted in conformity with his or her character.” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 22 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMCA-088, ¶ 18 , 150 N.M. 505 , 263 P.3d 282 (stating that proponent of Rule 11-404(B) evidence must make a “sufficient showing that the evidence would serve a legitimate …
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Maples
Rule 11-404(B)(2) lists a certain number of purposes for which other acts evidence may be admissible, but the enumerated purposes are not exclusive, and “another purpose” can be established so long as it is “relevant to an issue besides the inference that the [person] acted in conformity with his or 8 her character.” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 22 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMCA-088, ¶ 18 , 150 N.M. 505 , 263 P.3d 282 (stating that proponent of Rule 11-404(B) evidence must make a “sufficient showing that the evidence would serve a legitimat…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Renolds
In Huff, the victim’s testimony that the 9 defendant grabbed her breasts and squeezed them and that this act caused her pain and 10 discomfort provided sufficient evidence that the defendant used physical force in the 11 commission of criminal sexual contact. 1998-NMCA-075, ¶ 11 . 12 Consistent with Perea and Huff, “force” in this case was defined by statute as 13 “the use of physical force or physical violence.” See NMSA 1978, § 30-9-10(A)(1) 14 (2005); Perea, 2008-NMCA-147, ¶ 12 ; Huff, 1998-NMCA-075, ¶ 9 ; see also State v. 15 Coleman, 2011-NMCA-087, ¶ 19 , 150 N.M. 622 , 264…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE
v.
MOORE.
v.
MOORE.
33,111, (COA 29,248).
New Mexico Supreme Court.
Aug 5, 2011.
Published
Denial of Certiorari.