nature of the claimed error in New Mexico

2024See State v. Varela, 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 454 , 993 P.2d 1280 (explaining that to preserve an issue for appeal, a timely objection must be made that specifically apprizes the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (holding that the appellate court will not search the record for evidence of preservation when the defendant did not provide adequate transcript references).

2024See State v. Varela, 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 454 , 993 P.2d 1280 (explaining that to preserve an issue for appeal, a timely objection must be made that specifically apprizes the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (holding that the appellate court will not search the record for evidence of preservation when the defendant did not provide adequate transcript references).

2026To preserve an issue, it is necessary 12 for the issue advanced on appeal to have been raised before the trial court with 13 enough specificity to “apprise[] the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and 14 invoke[] an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 , ¶ 45, 15 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State v. Ortiz, 16 2009-NMCA-092, ¶ 32 , 146 N.M. 873 , 215 P.3d 811 (“To preserve an issue for 17 review on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial 18 court on the same grounds argued in the appell

2025He argues on appeal that the statement was not hearsay to begin with and, if it was, it was admissible as a present-sense impression. {22} Although we “do not apply the preservation requirement in an unduly technical manner,” In re Est. of Baca, 1999-NMCA-082, ¶ 15 , 127 N.M. 535 , 984 P.2d 782 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), it is necessary for the issue advanced on appeal to have been raised before the district court with enough specificity to “apprise[] the [district] court of the nature of the claimed error and invoke[] an intelligent ruling thereon,” State v. Montoya, 201

2021Here, in addition to the field test, the officer also testified that drug paraphernalia was found with the substance in question. [RP 93] We conclude that this evidence satisfies the reasonable certainty standard. {5} To the extent that Defendant is arguing that the field test testimony violated his right to due process [MIO 4], Defendant did not raise this issue below with respect to the field test. [RP 93] See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (stating that “[i]n order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the

2021Here, in addition to the field test, the officer also testified that drug paraphernalia was found with the substance in question. [RP 93] We conclude that this evidence satisfies the reasonable certainty standard. {5} To the extent that Defendant is arguing that the field test testimony violated his right to due process [MIO 4], Defendant did not raise this issue below with respect to the field test. [RP 93] See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (stating that “[i]n order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the

2026“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the [district] court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC- 010, ¶ 45, 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026To preserve an issue, it is necessary 12 for the issue advanced on appeal to have been raised before the trial court with 13 enough specificity to “apprise[] the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and 14 invoke[] an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 , ¶ 45, 15 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State v. Ortiz, 16 2009-NMCA-092, ¶ 32 , 146 N.M. 873 , 215 P.3d 811 (“To preserve an issue for 17 review on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial 18 court on the same grounds argued in the appell

2026“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, [an appellant] must have made a timely and specific objection that apprised the district court of the nature of the claimed error and that allows the district court to make an intelligent ruling thereon.” Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009-NMCA-095, ¶ 56 , 146 N.M. 853 , 215 P.3d 791 ; Rule 12-321(A) NMRA. “[O]n appeal, the party must specifically point out where, in the record, the party invoked the court’s ruling on the issue.” Crutchfield v. N.M. Dep’t of Tax’n & Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 14 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 .

2026“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, [an appellant] must have made a timely and specific objection that apprised the district court of the nature of the claimed error and that allows the district court to make an intelligent ruling thereon.” Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009-NMCA-095, ¶ 56 , 146 N.M. 853 , 215 P.3d 791 ; Rule 12-321(A) NMRA. “[O]n appeal, the party must specifically point out where, in the record, the party invoked the court’s ruling on the issue.” Crutchfield v. N.M. Dep’t of Tax’n & Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 14 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 .

2025See Montoya, 2015-NMSC- 010, ¶ 45 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a [party] must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 33 , 292 P.3d 493 (“We generally do not consider issues on appeal that are not preserved below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2025See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a [party] must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); State v. Leon, 2013-NMCA- 011, ¶ 33, 292 P.3d 493 (“We generally do not consider issues on appeal that are not preserved below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {6} Lastly, the State’s argument that it preserved the issue by notifying the court that it lacked sufficie

2024See State v. Walters, 2007-NMSC-050, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 644 , 168 P.3d 1068 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2024See State v. Walters, 2007-NMSC-050, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 644 , 168 P.3d 1068 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2015See State v. Lopez, 2007-NMSC-037, ¶ 15 , 142 N.M. 138 , 164 P.3d 19 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). {32} Our courts have repeatedly stated that “causing” and “permitting” child abuse are distinct theories, one premised upon active abuse (causing), the other upon “the passive act of allowing the abuse to occur” (permitting).

2015See State v. Lopez, 2007-NMSC-037, ¶ 15 , 142 N.M. 138 , 164 P.3d 19 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). {32} Our courts have repeatedly stated that “causing” and “permitting” child abuse are distinct theories, one premised upon active abuse (causing), the other upon “the passive act of allowing the abuse to occur” (permitting).

2024See Murken v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., 2006-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 140 N.M. 68 , 139 P.3d 864 (requiring parties to “make a timely objection that specifically apprises the [lower tribunal] of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon” in order to preserve an issue for appeal (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2024See Murken v. Deutsche Morgan Grenfell, Inc., 2006-NMCA-080, ¶ 10 , 140 N.M. 68 , 139 P.3d 864 (requiring parties to “make a timely objection that specifically apprises the [lower tribunal] of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon” in order to preserve an issue for appeal (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2017See State v. Morgan, 2016-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 29-33 , 382 P.3d 11 981 (explaining that the district court equivalent of Rule 7-502(A)(3), compiled as 12 Rule 5-304(A)(2) NMRA, embodies both preservation and reservation requirements 13 and requires that the defendant first preserve the issue before reserving the right to 14 appeal a ruling on that issue); see also State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 15 P.3d 1056 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely 16 objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and 17 invokes an

2017See State v. Morgan, 2016-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 29-33 , 382 P.3d 11 981 (explaining that the district court equivalent of Rule 7-502(A)(3), compiled as 12 Rule 5-304(A)(2) NMRA, embodies both preservation and reservation requirements 13 and requires that the defendant first preserve the issue before reserving the right to 14 appeal a ruling on that issue); see also State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 15 P.3d 1056 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely 16 objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and 17 invokes an

2024RKI answers Plaintiffs did not preserve the issue. {34} To preserve an issue for review on appeal, “a party must have made a timely and specific objection that apprised the district court of the nature of the claimed error and that allows the district court to make an intelligent ruling thereon.” Gonzales v. Shaw, 2018-NMCA-059 , ¶ 14, 428 P.3d 280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co., 1995-NMCA-069 , ¶ 32, 120 N.M. 430 , 902 P.2d 1033 (“No New Mexico civil case has permitted a litigant to fashion legal objections to jury instructions fo

2022We disagree. {15} To preserve an issue for review on appeal, “a party must have made a timely and specific objection that apprised the district court of the nature of the claimed error and that allows the district court to make an intelligent ruling thereon.” Gonzales v. Shaw, 2018-NMCA-059 , ¶ 14, 428 P.3d 280 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {16} Despite the City’s assertion that it preserved this issue in its Answer, “an affirmative defense is not preserved for our review unless it is litigated before the district court and a ruling is invoked on the issue.” McDonald v. Zimm

2009See State v. Elliott, 2001-NMCA-108, ¶21 , 131 N.M. 390 , 37 P.3d 107 (“Our case law is clear that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objeetion that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). {16} The preservation rule “serves many purposes: it provides the lower court an opportunity to correct any mistake, it provides the opposing party a fair opportunity to show why the court should rule in its favor, and it creates a record from which this Court may make informed decisions.” Sta

2009See State v. Elliott, 2001-NMCA-108, ¶21 , 131 N.M. 390 , 37 P.3d 107 (“Our case law is clear that in order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objeetion that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). {16} The preservation rule “serves many purposes: it provides the lower court an opportunity to correct any mistake, it provides the opposing party a fair opportunity to show why the court should rule in its favor, and it creates a record from which this Court may make informed decisions.” Sta

2017Preservation 11 1 {20} As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the issue was preserved 2 when Defendant filed a motion in limine and objected to Cabrera’s testimony at trial. 3 “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection 4 that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes 5 an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Walters, 2007-NMSC-050, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 644 , 6 168 P.3d 1068 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Rule 11- 7 103(A)(1)(a)-(b) NMRA (“A party may claim error in a ruling to adm

2017Preservation 11 1 {20} As a preliminary matter, we must determine whether the issue was preserved 2 when Defendant filed a motion in limine and objected to Cabrera’s testimony at trial. 3 “In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection 4 that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes 5 an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Walters, 2007-NMSC-050, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 644 , 6 168 P.3d 1068 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Rule 11- 7 103(A)(1)(a)-(b) NMRA (“A party may claim error in a ruling to adm

2018See Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 , ¶ 45 8 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection 9 that specifically apprises the [district] court of the nature of the claimed error and 10 invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citation 11 omitted)); see also State v. Paiz, 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 33 , 149 N.M. 412 , 249 P.3d 12 1235 (“On appeal we only consider issues raised in the [district] court unless the 13 issues involve matters of jurisdictional or fundamental error.”); State v. Anderson, 14 2016-NMCA-007, ¶ 18 , 364 P.3d 306 (“Our courts

2018See Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 , ¶ 45 8 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection 9 that specifically apprises the [district] court of the nature of the claimed error and 10 invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quotation marks and citation 11 omitted)); see also State v. Paiz, 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 33 , 149 N.M. 412 , 249 P.3d 12 1235 (“On appeal we only consider issues raised in the [district] court unless the 13 issues involve matters of jurisdictional or fundamental error.”); State v. Anderson, 14 2016-NMCA-007, ¶ 18 , 364 P.3d 306 (“Our courts

2023See Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009- NMCA-095, ¶ 56, 146 N.M. 853 , 215 P.3d 791 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, [an appellant] must have made a timely and specific objection that apprised the district court of the nature of the claimed error and that allows the district court to make an intelligent ruling thereon.”). construed narrowly because privileges impede the search for the truth.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Pierce, 537 U.S. at 144 (adopting a narrow interpretation of the first part of § 407).

2023“The narrow 2 interpretation is that a report was collected for the statutory purpose if the agency 3 collected it with the intent to use it for a particular construction project.” Id. at 184 . 4 {13} The Third Circuit Court adopted the narrow interpretation for two reasons. 5 First, the recognized principle that “statutes establishing evidentiary privileges must 6 be construed narrowly because privileges impede the search for the truth.” Id. 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Pierce, 537 U.S. at 144 8 (adopting a narrow interpretation of the first part of § 407).

2023See State v. Lente, 2005-NMCA-111, ¶ 11 , 138 N.M. 312 , 119 P.3d 737 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). 15 1 III.

2023See State v. Lente, 2005-NMCA-111, ¶ 11 , 138 N.M. 312 , 119 P.3d 737 (“In order to preserve an issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”). 15 1 III.

2015See State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 26 , 150 N.M. 654 , 265 P.3d 705 (quoting State v. Leal, 1986-NMCA-075 , ¶¶ 13, 19, 104 N.M. 506 , 723 P.2d 977 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2015See State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 26 , 150 N.M. 654 , 265 P.3d 705 (quoting State v. Leal, 1986-NMCA-075 , ¶¶ 13, 19, 104 N.M. 506 , 723 P.2d 977 (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2026In considering the importance of preservation, we note that a probationer’s right to due process in revocation proceedings “is flexible and calls for procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC-014, ¶ 33 , 150 N.M. 84 , 257 P.3d 904 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026In considering the importance of preservation, we note that a probationer’s right to due process in revocation proceedings “is flexible and calls for procedural protections as the particular situation demands.” State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC-014, ¶ 33 , 150 N.M. 84 , 257 P.3d 904 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024See State v. Varela, 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 454 , 993 P.2d 1280 (explaining that to preserve an issue for appeal, a timely objection must be made that specifically apprizes the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (holding that the appellate court will not search the record for evidence of preservation when the defendant did not provide adequate transcript references).

2024See State v. Varela, 1999-NMSC-045, ¶ 25 , 128 N.M. 454 , 993 P.2d 1280 (explaining that to preserve an issue for appeal, a timely objection must be made that specifically apprizes the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 44 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (holding that the appellate court will not search the record for evidence of preservation when the defendant did not provide adequate transcript references).

2026To preserve an issue, it is necessary 12 for the issue advanced on appeal to have been raised before the trial court with 13 enough specificity to “apprise[] the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and 14 invoke[] an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 , ¶ 45, 15 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State v. Ortiz, 16 2009-NMCA-092, ¶ 32 , 146 N.M. 873 , 215 P.3d 811 (“To preserve an issue for 17 review on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial 18 court on the same grounds argued in the appell

2026To preserve an issue, it is necessary 12 for the issue advanced on appeal to have been raised before the trial court with 13 enough specificity to “apprise[] the trial court of the nature of the claimed error and 14 invoke[] an intelligent ruling thereon.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010 , ¶ 45, 15 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see State v. Ortiz, 16 2009-NMCA-092, ¶ 32 , 146 N.M. 873 , 215 P.3d 811 (“To preserve an issue for 17 review on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial 18 court on the same grounds argued in the appell

2020See State v. Quinones, 2011-NMCA-018, ¶ 23 , 149 N.M. 294 , 248 P.3d 336 (“[The d]efendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”); Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (“To preserve an issue for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked.”).

2020See State v. Quinones, 2011-NMCA-018, ¶ 23 , 149 N.M. 294 , 248 P.3d 336 (“[The d]efendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”); Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (“To preserve an issue for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked.”).

2023State v. Quiñones, 2011-NMCA-018, ¶ 23 , 149 N.M. 294 , 248 P.3d 336 .

2020See State v. Quinones, 2011-NMCA-018, ¶ 23 , 149 N.M. 294 , 248 P.3d 336 (“[The d]efendant must make a timely objection that specifically apprises the district court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an intelligent ruling thereon.”); Rule 12-321(A) NMRA (“To preserve an issue for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision by the trial court was fairly invoked.”).

2018See State v. Janzen, 2007-NMCA-134, ¶ 16 , 142 N.M. 7 638, 168 P.3d 768 (holding that district court’s “musings” were insufficient to 8 preserve the issue when “the [s]tate did not, either before or after the court’s 9 decision, alert the court to the fact that it was contesting the issue”); see also, e.g., 10 State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (“In order to preserve an 11 issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically 12 apprises the [district] court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an 13 intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quo

2018See State v. Janzen, 2007-NMCA-134, ¶ 16 , 142 N.M. 7 638, 168 P.3d 768 (holding that district court’s “musings” were insufficient to 8 preserve the issue when “the [s]tate did not, either before or after the court’s 9 decision, alert the court to the fact that it was contesting the issue”); see also, e.g., 10 State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 45 , 345 P.3d 1056 (“In order to preserve an 11 issue for appeal, a defendant must make a timely objection that specifically 12 apprises the [district] court of the nature of the claimed error and invokes an 13 intelligent ruling thereon.” (internal quo