857 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1914–2026 164 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2026Thus, Defendant argues we should review for reversible error rather than fundamental error, though he argues for reversal under either standard. {16} Under the standards for both reversible error and fundamental error, our initial determination is whether error occurred: “We must determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 19 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (“Fundamental-error analysis then requires a higher level of scrutiny . . . to determine whether the [d]efendant’s conviction was the result of a plai 2026Thus, Defendant argues we should review for reversible error rather than fundamental error, though he argues for reversal under either standard. {16} Under the standards for both reversible error and fundamental error, our initial determination is whether error occurred: “We must determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 19 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (“Fundamental-error analysis then requires a higher level of scrutiny . . . to determine whether the [d]efendant’s conviction was the result of a plai | 53 | 159 |
State v. Cunninghamgreen2 sentences2026“Fundamental error only applies in exceptional circumstances when guilt is so doubtful that [allowing the conviction to stand] would shock the judicial conscience.” Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026“Fundamental error only applies in exceptional circumstances when guilt is so doubtful that [allowing the conviction to stand] would shock the judicial conscience.” Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 43 | 90 |
State v. Osbornegreen2 sentences2016We 2 discuss these arguments in turn. 3 THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR DOCTRINE 4 {9} The fundamental error doctrine stands as “[a]n exception to the general rule 5 barring review of questions not properly preserved below[.]” State v. Osborne, 1991- 6 NMSC-032, ¶ 38, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (internal quotation marks and citation 7 omitted). 2016We 2 discuss these arguments in turn. 3 THE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR DOCTRINE 4 {9} The fundamental error doctrine stands as “[a]n exception to the general rule 5 barring review of questions not properly preserved below[.]” State v. Osborne, 1991- 6 NMSC-032, ¶ 38, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (internal quotation marks and citation 7 omitted). | 21 | 29 |
State v. Sosagreen2 sentences2026Defendant did not object 10 to the prosecutor’s statements at trial, so we review this issue for fundamental error. 11 State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 26 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . 12 {64} Fundamental error occurs where there is a “reasonable probability that the 13 error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the 14 evidence before them.” State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 21 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 15 P.3d 61 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026Defendant did not object 10 to the prosecutor’s statements at trial, so we review this issue for fundamental error. 11 State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 26 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . 12 {64} Fundamental error occurs where there is a “reasonable probability that the 13 error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the 14 evidence before them.” State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 21 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 15 P.3d 61 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 18 | 48 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2025State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 ; Rule 12- 6 321(B)(2)(c), (d) NMRA (permitting appellate review of unpreserved issues that 7 involve fundamental error or affect the fundamental rights of a party). 8 {28} “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so 9 egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that 10 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” Allen, 2000-NMSC, ¶ 95 (internal 11 quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 ; Rule 12- 6 321(B)(2)(c), (d) NMRA (permitting appellate review of unpreserved issues that 7 involve fundamental error or affect the fundamental rights of a party). 8 {28} “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so 9 egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that 10 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” Allen, 2000-NMSC, ¶ 95 (internal 11 quotation marks and citation omitted). | 16 | 45 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2018This record supports 17 1 the conclusion that Defendant and his counsel consciously chose to take Defendant’s 2 chances on acquittal of the methamphetamine possession charge and forego the 3 potential downside (as well as upside) of permitting the jury the opportunity of 4 convicting him on a drug paraphernalia charge that encompassed the baggies. “[T]he 5 defendant . . . may take his chances with the jury by waiving instructions on lesser 6 included offenses and cannot be heard to complain on appeal if he has gambled and 7 lost.” Boeglin, 1987-NMSC-002 , ¶ 15. 8 {24} In any event, even assumi 2018This record supports 17 1 the conclusion that Defendant and his counsel consciously chose to take Defendant’s 2 chances on acquittal of the methamphetamine possession charge and forego the 3 potential downside (as well as upside) of permitting the jury the opportunity of 4 convicting him on a drug paraphernalia charge that encompassed the baggies. “[T]he 5 defendant . . . may take his chances with the jury by waiving instructions on lesser 6 included offenses and cannot be heard to complain on appeal if he has gambled and 7 lost.” Boeglin, 1987-NMSC-002 , ¶ 15. 8 {24} In any event, even assumi | 14 | 26 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences2026“The doctrine of fundamental error is to 1 be resorted to in criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence 2 appears indisputably, or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to 3 permit the conviction to stand.” State v. Rodriguez, 1970-NMSC-073 , ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 4 503, 469 P.2d 148 . “[W]e begin with the presumption that the verdict was justified, 5 and then ask whether the error was fundamental.” State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056 , ¶ 6 37, 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . 2026“The doctrine of fundamental error is to 1 be resorted to in criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence 2 appears indisputably, or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to 3 permit the conviction to stand.” State v. Rodriguez, 1970-NMSC-073 , ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 4 503, 469 P.2d 148 . “[W]e begin with the presumption that the verdict was justified, 5 and then ask whether the error was fundamental.” State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056 , ¶ 6 37, 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . | 13 | 19 |
State v. Benallygreen2 sentences2024State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {18} To determine whether the erroneously provided jury instruction rises to the level of fundamental error, we look to “whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction,” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 14 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide 2024State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {18} To determine whether the erroneously provided jury instruction rises to the level of fundamental error, we look to “whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction,” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 14 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide | 11 | 32 |
State v. Oroscogreen2 sentences2024However, we cannot conclusively say in this instance that, based upon the evidence presented at trial and the jury’s general verdict, the jury’s finding “necessarily include[d] or amount[ed] to a finding on an element omitted from the jury’s instructions.” See State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006 , ¶ 12, 113 N.M. 780 , 833 P.2d 1146 . {34} In the second circumstance, the failure to instruct on an essential element does not rise to the level of fundamental error when “the jury’s findings and the unchallenged evidence on which those findings rest[] show that the jury, if properly instructed, undoubted 2024However, we cannot conclusively say in this instance that, based upon the evidence presented at trial and the jury’s general verdict, the jury’s finding “necessarily include[d] or amount[ed] to a finding on an element omitted from the jury’s instructions.” See State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006 , ¶ 12, 113 N.M. 780 , 833 P.2d 1146 . {34} In the second circumstance, the failure to instruct on an essential element does not rise to the level of fundamental error when “the jury’s findings and the unchallenged evidence on which those findings rest[] show that the jury, if properly instructed, undoubted | 11 | 25 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2018Where Defendant, 15 by her own actions invites error, we will not consider a fundamental error argument. 16 State v. Clark, 1989-NMSC-010 , ¶ 30, 108 N.M. 288 , 772 P.2d 322 (“The 17 fundamental error rule guards against the corruption of justice. 2018Where Defendant, 15 by her own actions invites error, we will not consider a fundamental error argument. 16 State v. Clark, 1989-NMSC-010 , ¶ 30, 108 N.M. 288 , 772 P.2d 322 (“The 17 fundamental error rule guards against the corruption of justice. | 11 | 21 |
State v. Silvagreen2 sentences2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t | 8 | 29 |
State v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2025“Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {26} Defendant points to three instances of alleged misconduct. 2025“Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {26} Defendant points to three instances of alleged misconduct. | 8 | 21 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2023We employ the fundamental error exception “very guardedly,” State v. Garcia, 1914-NMSC-065 , ¶ 19, 19 N.M. 414 , 143 P. 1012 (opinion upon rehearing), and apply it “only under extraordinary circumstances to prevent the miscarriage of justice.” State v. Maestas, 2007-NMSC-001, ¶ 8 , 140 N.M. 836 , 149 P.3d 933 . 2023We employ the fundamental error exception “very guardedly,” State v. Garcia, 1914-NMSC-065 , ¶ 19, 19 N.M. 414 , 143 P. 1012 (opinion upon rehearing), and apply it “only under extraordinary circumstances to prevent the miscarriage of justice.” State v. Maestas, 2007-NMSC-001, ¶ 8 , 140 N.M. 836 , 149 P.3d 933 . | 7 | 29 |
State v. Sutphingreen2 sentences2023See Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c), (d) NMRA (providing appellate court discretion as an exception to the preservation rule to review questions involving fundamental error or fundamental rights); State v. Johnson, 2010-NMSC-016, ¶ 25 , 148 N.M. 50 , 229 P.3d 523 . {4} Fundamental error occurs “only if there has been a miscarriage of justice . . . if substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 16 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2023See id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 16 (holding that reversal is mandatory where neither of the fundamental error exceptions apply). {22} Whether the proper remedy is dismissal of the charge or retrial upon remand, however, is dependent on the sufficiency of the State’s evidence. | 7 | 18 |
| State v. Ortegagreen | 7 | 9 |
State v. Rojogreen2 sentences2023Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) NMRA; see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 , 14 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (“Failure to make a timely objection to alleged improper 15 argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental 16 error . . . [which] arises when [there is] misconduct that compromises the 4 1 defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).2 2 Fundamental error analysis involves two basic steps. 2023Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) NMRA; see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 , 14 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (“Failure to make a timely objection to alleged improper 15 argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental 16 error . . . [which] arises when [there is] misconduct that compromises the 4 1 defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).2 2 Fundamental error analysis involves two basic steps. | 6 | 11 |
| State v. Jettgreen | 6 | 9 |
| State v. Boeglingreen | 6 | 8 |
State v. Bacagreen2 sentences2017Fundamental error “only applies in exceptional circumstances when 4 guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction 5 to stand.” State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-045, ¶ 41 , 124 N.M. 55 , 946 P.2d 1066 , 6 overruled on other grounds by State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025 , 146 N.M. 357 , 7 210 P.3d 783 . 8 {10} In support of his position that fundamental error occurred, Defendant highlights 9 State v. Stevens, 2014-NMSC-011 , 323 P.3d 901 , arguing when charging CSP II- 10 felony, the associated felony “must be a felony that is committed against the victim 11 of, 2017Fundamental error “only applies in exceptional circumstances when 4 guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction 5 to stand.” State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-045, ¶ 41 , 124 N.M. 55 , 946 P.2d 1066 , 6 overruled on other grounds by State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025 , 146 N.M. 357 , 7 210 P.3d 783 . 8 {10} In support of his position that fundamental error occurred, Defendant highlights 9 State v. Stevens, 2014-NMSC-011 , 323 P.3d 901 , arguing when charging CSP II- 10 felony, the associated felony “must be a felony that is committed against the victim 11 of, | 5 | 29 |
State v. Mascarenasgreen2 sentences2019See Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 9 (stating that, in a fundamental error analysis for failure to give a jury instruction, the first question is whether the defendant would have been entitled to the instruction had the defendant requested it). implicated only when a missing definitional instruction implicates “a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction[.]” Id. ¶ 26 (quoting State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 ). 2019See Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 9 (stating that, in a fundamental error analysis for failure to give a jury instruction, the first question is whether the defendant would have been entitled to the instruction had the defendant requested it). implicated only when a missing definitional instruction implicates “a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction[.]” Id. ¶ 26 (quoting State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 ). | 5 | 16 |
Campos v. Bravogreen2 sentences2023For that reason, under a fundamental-error analysis, the Campos Court concluded, “Error occurred at [the defendant]’s trial because one of the alternative bases for his conviction was legally inadequate.” Id. ¶ 17. {21} The Campos Court reaffirmed that “‘a conviction under a general verdict must be reversed if one of the alternative bases of conviction is legally inadequate.’” Campos, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 19 (quoting State v. Olguin, 1995-NMSC-077 , ¶ 2, 120 N.M. 740 , 906 P.2d 731 (relying on Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 326-27 (1957), overruled on other grounds by Burks v. United States 2023The Campos Court noted that the defendant’s “conviction 19 of felony murder would be legally void if the jury used aggravated battery with a 9 1 deadly weapon as the predicate felony” because “it is not possible to commit second- 2 degree murder without also committing some form of aggravated battery.” Id. ¶ 12. 3 For that reason, under a fundamental-error analysis, the Campos Court concluded, 4 “Error occurred at [the defendant]’s trial because one of the alternative bases for his 5 conviction was legally inadequate.” Id. ¶ 17. 6 {21} The Campos Court reaffirmed that “‘a conviction under a ge | 5 | 12 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2024“In applying the fundamental error analysis to deficient jury instructions, we are required to reverse when . . . misinstruction leaves us with ‘no way of knowing whether the conviction was or was not based on the lack of the essential element.’” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 14 , 306 P.3d 426 (quoting State v. Swick, 2012- NMSC-018, ¶ 46, 279 P.3d 747 ). {4} In this case, the jury was instructed on the offense of child abuse as follows: For you to find [Defendant] guilty of child abuse . . . the [S]tate must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following eleme 2019“In applying the fundamental error analysis to deficient jury instructions, we are required to reverse when the misinstruction leaves us with no way of knowing whether the conviction was or was not based on the lack of the essential element.” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 14 , 306 P.3d 426 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {9} In this case, we must determine whether a missing definitional instruction is fundamental error. | 5 | 11 |
State v. Castillogreen2 sentences2025“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Castillo, 2011-NMCA-046, ¶ 29 , 149 N.M. 536 , 252 P.3d 760 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Castillo, 2011-NMCA-046, ¶ 29 , 149 N.M. 536 , 252 P.3d 760 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 5 | 9 |
| State v. Lucerogreen | 5 | 9 |
| State v. Rogersgreen | 5 | 7 |
| Roth v. Thompsongreen | 5 | 6 |
| State v. Reedgreen | 5 | 6 |
| State v. Lucerogreen | 5 | 6 |
| State v. Bankertgreen | 5 | 5 |
State v. Duffygreen2 sentences2013In the first, during his testimony, Defendant described a facial hair style he 9 had as a “devil’s peak,” and the prosecutor interjected that such a name was 10 “appropriate.” The district court immediately admonished the prosecutor and told him 11 “no comments.” “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error 12 when it is ‘so egregious’ and ‘had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the 13 jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.’” Id. (quoting State v. 14 Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 46-47 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 ). 2013In the first, during his testimony, Defendant described a facial hair style he 9 had as a “devil’s peak,” and the prosecutor interjected that such a name was 10 “appropriate.” The district court immediately admonished the prosecutor and told him 11 “no comments.” “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error 12 when it is ‘so egregious’ and ‘had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the 13 jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.’” Id. (quoting State v. 14 Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶¶ 46-47 , 126 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 ). | 4 | 11 |
State v. Chavezgreen2 sentences1994“The fundamental rule in construing statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” State v. Chavez, 77 N.M. 79, 82 , 419 P.2d 456, 457 (1966). 1994“The fundamental rule in construing statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature.” State v. Chavez, 77 N.M. 79, 82 , 419 P.2d 456, 457 (1966). | 4 | 11 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2023We therefore decline to consider Defendant’s assertion that there was no strategic reason for his failure to request a lesser included offense instruction and reject Defendant’s attempt, on this basis, to distinguish the line of cases declining to apply fundamental error in this context.1 See, e.g., Foster, 1999-NMSC-007, ¶ 54 (observing that appellate courts have declined to apply the fundamental error doctrine in the lesser included offense instruction context). {18} Defendant has not otherwise persuasively argued why we should exercise our discretion to review his lesser included offense in 2023Our Supreme Court has “declined to apply the doctrine of fundamental error to a defendant’s choice of whether to have the jury instructed on lesser included offenses.” State v. Foster, 1999- NMSC-007, ¶ 54, 126 N.M. 646 , 974 P.2d 140 , abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Kersey v. Hatch, 2010-NMSC-020, ¶ 17 , 148 N.M. 381 , 237 P.3d 683 . | 4 | 10 |
State v. Alingoggreen2 sentences2024We employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances to prevent the miscarriage of justice.” Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Alingog, 1994-NMSC-063 , ¶ 11, 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 (“The failure by the state to preserve error obviously does not itself constitute a miscarriage of justice; a miscarriage must exist notwithstanding failure to preserve error. . . . [I]t is only when the merits of applying those rules clearly are outweighed by other principles of substantial justice 2024We employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances to prevent the miscarriage of justice.” Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Alingog, 1994-NMSC-063 , ¶ 11, 117 N.M. 756 , 877 P.2d 562 (“The failure by the state to preserve error obviously does not itself constitute a miscarriage of justice; a miscarriage must exist notwithstanding failure to preserve error. . . . [I]t is only when the merits of applying those rules clearly are outweighed by other principles of substantial justice | 4 | 9 |
| Estate of Gutierrez v. Meteor Monumentgreen | 4 | 8 |
| State v. Cabezuelagreen | 4 | 8 |
| State v. Hendersongreen | 4 | 7 |
| State v. Villagreen | 4 | 6 |
| State v. Senagreen | 4 | 5 |
| State v. Handagreen | 4 | 5 |
| State v. Blevinsgreen | 4 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Bacagreen2 sentences2017Fundamental error “only applies in exceptional circumstances when 4 guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction 5 to stand.” State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-045, ¶ 41 , 124 N.M. 55 , 946 P.2d 1066 , 6 overruled on other grounds by State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025 , 146 N.M. 357 , 7 210 P.3d 783 . 8 {10} In support of his position that fundamental error occurred, Defendant highlights 9 State v. Stevens, 2014-NMSC-011 , 323 P.3d 901 , arguing when charging CSP II- 10 felony, the associated felony “must be a felony that is committed against the victim 11 of, 2017Fundamental error “only applies in exceptional circumstances when 4 guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction 5 to stand.” State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-045, ¶ 41 , 124 N.M. 55 , 946 P.2d 1066 , 6 overruled on other grounds by State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025 , 146 N.M. 357 , 7 210 P.3d 783 . 8 {10} In support of his position that fundamental error occurred, Defendant highlights 9 State v. Stevens, 2014-NMSC-011 , 323 P.3d 901 , arguing when charging CSP II- 10 felony, the associated felony “must be a felony that is committed against the victim 11 of, | 1 | 29 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2018Where Defendant, 15 by her own actions invites error, we will not consider a fundamental error argument. 16 State v. Clark, 1989-NMSC-010 , ¶ 30, 108 N.M. 288 , 772 P.2d 322 (“The 17 fundamental error rule guards against the corruption of justice. 2018Where Defendant, 15 by her own actions invites error, we will not consider a fundamental error argument. 16 State v. Clark, 1989-NMSC-010 , ¶ 30, 108 N.M. 288 , 772 P.2d 322 (“The 17 fundamental error rule guards against the corruption of justice. | 1 | 21 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Fry green | 6 | 2017–2020 |
| State v. Paiz green | 6 | 2002–2019 |
| Estate of Gutierrez Ex Rel. Jaramillo v. Meteor Monument green | 5 | 2016–2023 |
| State v. Fry green | 5 | 2017–2020 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.