28 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2024 6 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. Travison B.green2 sentences2022See Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 13-14 . 3 Here, as the State contends, Defendant’s physical altercation with Officer Martinez 4 creates such an exception as a new crime, allowing the evidence of Defendant’s other 5 charges to be admissible. 6 {39} A brief discussion of the new crimes exception will be helpful to our analysis. 7 We originally adopted the new crime exception for violent crimes, although not by 8 name, in State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 ; see 9 also Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶ 19 (discussing our adoption of the new crime 10 exception). 2022See Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 13-14 . 3 Here, as the State contends, Defendant’s physical altercation with Officer Martinez 4 creates such an exception as a new crime, allowing the evidence of Defendant’s other 5 charges to be admissible. 6 {39} A brief discussion of the new crimes exception will be helpful to our analysis. 7 We originally adopted the new crime exception for violent crimes, although not by 8 name, in State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 ; see 9 also Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶ 19 (discussing our adoption of the new crime 10 exception). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Tapiagreen2 sentences2024See id. at 12 238 (reviewing exceptions to the exclusionary rule and stating that, where they 13 apply, evidence obtained from the unlawful search or seizure can be admitted). 14 {29} Among the recognized exceptions in New Mexico is the new crime exception. 15 Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶ 50 . 2024See 2018-NMSC-017, ¶ 15 (adopting three federal 4 attenuation factors to determine whether the new crime exception applies). 5 Specifically, we examine “(1) the lapsed time between the illegality and the 6 acquisition of the evidence, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and (3) 7 the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Id. ¶¶ 15, 35, 50. | 5 | 5 |
Brown v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences2024To determine whether the new crime exception applies, we apply the three attenuation factors from Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975): “(1) the lapsed time between the illegality and the acquisition of the evidence, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and (3) the purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶ 15 . 2018See 422 U.S. 590 , 603-04, 95 S.Ct. 2254 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975). {16} "It was [the attenuation doctrine] that spawned the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule." Christopher J. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Tyrone Pryorgreen2 sentences2018See United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192, 1195-1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (involving a defendant’s misrepresentation of identity to federal agents); United States v. Garcia-Jordan, 860 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a defendant’s false statement of citizenship was a new and distinct crime committed in the border agent’s presence and not barred by the exclusionary rule). {21} Some state courts have also held that identity crimes committed after a Fourth Amendment violation fall under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. 2018See *338 United States v. Pryor , 32 F.3d 1192 , 1195-1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (involving a defendant's misrepresentation of identity to federal agents); United States v. Garcia-Jordan , 860 F.2d 159 , 161 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a defendant's false statement of citizenship was a new and distinct crime committed in the border agent's presence and not barred by the exclusionary rule). {21} Some state courts have also held that identity crimes committed after a Fourth Amendment violation fall under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. | 2 | 4 |
Jackson v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See Jackson 15 v. State, 1983-NMSC-098 , ¶ 5, 100 N.M. 487 , 672 P.2d 660 (“Noncompliance with 16 the uniform jury instructions in criminal cases is reversible error if the failure 17 eliminates an essential element of the crime in the instruction or if the defendant is 18 prejudiced.”); State v. Watchman, 2005-NMCA-125, ¶ 15 , 138 N.M. 488 , 122 P.3d 8 1 855 (“[U]niform jury instructions and use notes are to be followed without substantial 2 modification.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 3 {14} Generally, an elements instruction may only be altered if alteration is necessary 2016See Jackson 15 v. State, 1983-NMSC-098 , ¶ 5, 100 N.M. 487 , 672 P.2d 660 (“Noncompliance with 16 the uniform jury instructions in criminal cases is reversible error if the failure 17 eliminates an essential element of the crime in the instruction or if the defendant is 18 prejudiced.”); State v. Watchman, 2005-NMCA-125, ¶ 15 , 138 N.M. 488 , 122 P.3d 8 1 855 (“[U]niform jury instructions and use notes are to be followed without substantial 2 modification.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 3 {14} Generally, an elements instruction may only be altered if alteration is necessary | 2 | 3 |
Herring v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2024Herring v. United 8 States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009); State v. Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017 , ¶ 13, 414 P.3d 9 332 . 2024Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 139 (2009); State v. Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017 , ¶ 13, 414 P.3d 332 . | 2 | 2 |
People v. Diamondgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t 2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Steven Curtis Waupekenaygreen2 sentences2018Other courts appear to regard the doctrine as a separate exception to exclusionary requirements, based on considerations distinguishable from those supporting the attenuation of taint doctrine." (footnotes omitted) ). 1 {18} The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the new crime exception in United States v. Waupekenay , 973 F.2d 1533 (10th Cir. 1992), a case that arose out of New Mexico. 2018The opinion notes that courts have applied different rationales in similar cases but concludes "whatever rationale is used, the result is the same: Evidence of a separate, independent crime initiated against police officers in their presence after an illegal entry or arrest will not be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 1538 . {19} Waupekenay involved a defendant reacting violently toward police officers, and many states, including New Mexico, have adopted the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule in such cases. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jenningsgreen2 sentences2012See State v. Jennings, 102 N.M. 89, 93 , 691 8 P.2d 882 , 886 (Ct. App. 1984) (“A failure to instruct on the definition or amplification 9 of the elements of a crime is not error.”). 10 ISSUE 2 11 Defendant continues to claim that his right to confrontation was violated when 12 a witness was allowed to testify regarding a call to dispatch. [MIO 6] Information 13 provided by a citizen 911 caller to dispatch is generally considered non-testimonial 14 and does not implicate the Confrontation Clause. 1991See Jackson v. State, 100 N.M. 487, 489 , 672 P.2d 660, 662 (1983) ("When a uniform jury instruction is provided for the elements of a crime, generally that instruction must be used without substantive modification."); State v. Jennings, 102 N.M. 89, 93 , 691 P.2d 882, 886 (Ct.App.) ("A failure to instruct on the definition or amplification of the elements of a crime is not error."), writ quashed, 102 N.M. 88 , 691 P.2d 881 (1984). | 2 | 2 |
Lewis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. 2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Manuel Garcia-Jordan, A/K/A Rene Perezgreen2 sentences2018See United States v. Pryor, 32 F.3d 1192, 1195-1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (involving a defendant’s misrepresentation of identity to federal agents); United States v. Garcia-Jordan, 860 F.2d 159, 161 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a defendant’s false statement of citizenship was a new and distinct crime committed in the border agent’s presence and not barred by the exclusionary rule). {21} Some state courts have also held that identity crimes committed after a Fourth Amendment violation fall under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. 2018See *338 United States v. Pryor , 32 F.3d 1192 , 1195-1196 (7th Cir. 1994) (involving a defendant's misrepresentation of identity to federal agents); United States v. Garcia-Jordan , 860 F.2d 159 , 161 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that a defendant's false statement of citizenship was a new and distinct crime committed in the border agent's presence and not barred by the exclusionary rule). {21} Some state courts have also held that identity crimes committed after a Fourth Amendment violation fall under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Suppahgreen2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t 2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t | 1 | 2 |
People v. Cantorgreen2 sentences2024However, New York courts have addressed this issue, and two cases provide guidance on the applicability of the new crime exception. {14} In People v. Cantor, the New York Court of Appeals held that evidence revealed as a direct consequence of an illegal stop should have been suppressed. 324 N.E.2d 872, 878 (N.Y. 1975). 2024However, New York courts have addressed this issue, and two cases provide guidance on the applicability of the new crime exception. {14} In People v. Cantor, the New York Court of Appeals held that evidence revealed as a direct consequence of an illegal stop should have been suppressed. 324 N.E.2d 872, 878 (N.Y. 1975). | 1 | 1 |
Utah v. Strieffgreen1 sentence2024See id. at 238 (reviewing exceptions to the exclusionary rule and stating that, where they apply, evidence obtained from the unlawful search or seizure can be admitted). {29} Among the recognized exceptions in New Mexico is the new crime exception. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Solizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mendezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Handagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ortegared | 1 | 1 |
| Smith v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Duncangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brocugliored2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t 2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t | 2 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Tapia
green
2 sentences2024“The [exclusionary] rule is not absolute, but applicable only where its deterrence benefits outweigh its substantial social costs.” Id. (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {10} Our Supreme Court has recognized the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule. 2022The State argued in addition that the investigatory 18 stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, and if not, given “Defendant’s use of 19 force against [Officer Martinez],” evidence of Defendant’s drug offenses, battery, 20 assault, and resisting, evading or obstructing an officer charges were admissible 5 1 under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule citing State v. Tapia, 2018- 2 NMSC-017, ¶ 50, 414 P.3d 332 . | 4 | 2022–2024 |
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. 2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. | 3 | 2015–2018 |
State v. Padilla
green
2 sentences2022In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we noted that, generally, “failure to give a definition instruction [cannot] be elevated to a failure to instruct on an essential element[, and] . . . a failure to instruct the jury on a definition or amplification of the elements of a crime is not error.” State v. Padilla, 1977-NMCA-055 , ¶ 5, 90 N.M. 481 , 565 P.2d 352 . 2022In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we noted that, generally, “failure to give a definition instruction [cannot] be elevated to a failure to instruct on an essential element[, and] . . . a failure to instruct the jury on a definition or amplification of the elements of a crime is not error.” State v. Padilla, 1977-NMCA-055 , ¶ 5, 90 N.M. 481 , 565 P.2d 352 . | 2 | 1983–2022 |
State v. Badessa
green
2 sentences2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. 2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Earl
green
2 sentences2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t 2018See, e.g. , People v. Diamond , 77 Misc.2d 412 , 353 N.Y.S.2d 688 , 690-91 (1974) (impersonating a transit authority conductor was a new crime not tainted by illegal arrest); State v. Suppah , 358 Or. 565 , 369 P.3d 1108 , 1112 (2016) ( Suppah II ) (concluding a defendant's commission of new crime of providing deputy with false name and address sufficiently attenuated taint of illegal stop); State v. Earl , 2004 UT App 163 , ¶¶ 23-24, 92 P.3d 167 (holding that a defendant giving officer a false name and birth date was an intervening act and not the product of the officer's illegal entry into t | 2 | 2018–2018 |
United States v. Carl Bailey
green
2 sentences2018The new crime exception was first articulated by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Bailey , 691 F.2d 1009 (11th Cir. 1983). 2018In Bailey , the Court of Appeals held that "notwithstanding a strong causal connection in fact between lawless police conduct and a defendant's response, if the defendant's response is itself a new, distinct crime, then the police constitutionally may arrest the defendant for that crime." 691 F.2d at 1016 -17 . {17} Whether the new crime exception is part of the attenuation doctrine or a separate exception to the exclusionary rule is unclear. 1 McCormick on Evidence § 180, at 972-73 (Kenneth S. Broun ed., 7th ed. 2013) ("Some courts appear to regard the doctrine as simply a specialized applica | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2018Defendant asks this Court to affirm the Court of Appeals ruling that the crimes of concealing identity and forgery should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment and asks alternatively for suppression under Article II, Section 10. {12} Under the interstitial approach adopted in State v. Gomez , 1997-NMSC-006 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 , we ask "first whether the right being asserted is protected under the federal constitution. 2018Defendant asks this Court to affirm the Court of Appeals ruling that the crimes of concealing identity and forgery should have been suppressed under the Fourth Amendment and asks alternatively for suppression under Article II, Section 10. {12} Under the interstitial approach adopted in State v. Gomez , 1997-NMSC-006 , ¶ 21, 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 , we ask "first whether the right being asserted is protected under the federal constitution. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Suppah
green
2 sentences2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. 2018The State also suggests that non-violent crimes can be as socially harmful as violent crimes and that we should look to the penalty for an offense as it " 'reveals the legislature's judgment about the offense's severity.' " (quoting Lewis v. United States , 518 U.S. 322 , 326, 116 S.Ct. 2163 , 135 L.Ed.2d 590 (1996) (discussing the right to jury trial) ). {24} By contrast, Defendant directs this Court to three cases from other jurisdictions that have declined to extend the new crime exception to non-violent acts by a defendant: People v. Brown , 345 Ill.App.3d 363 , 280 Ill.Dec. 431 , 802 N.E. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 (concluding that even if police officers entered an apartment unlawfully, evidence that the officers were attacked was admissible because the attack was “new criminal activity that is not subject to the exclusionary rule”); State v. Jones, 1992-NMCA-064 , ¶¶ 5, 16, 18, 114 N.M. 147 , 835 P.2d 863 (concluding that notwithstanding that the initial stop of the defendant was illegal, evidence that the defendant straggled with the police officer, hit him, broke from his grasp, and bolted, only to be caught by another p 2015See, e.g., State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 (concluding that even if police officers entered an apartment unlawfully, evidence that the officers were attacked was admissible because the attack was “new criminal activity that is not subject to the exclusionary rule”); State v. Jones, 1992-NMCA-064 , ¶¶ 5, 16, 18, 114 N.M. 147 , 835 P.2d 863 (concluding that notwithstanding that the initial stop of the defendant was illegal, evidence that the defendant straggled with the police officer, hit him, broke from his grasp, and bolted, only to be caught by another p | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Chamberlain
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 (concluding that even if police officers entered an apartment unlawfully, evidence that the officers were attacked was admissible because the attack was “new criminal activity that is not subject to the exclusionary rule”); State v. Jones, 1992-NMCA-064 , ¶¶ 5, 16, 18, 114 N.M. 147 , 835 P.2d 863 (concluding that notwithstanding that the initial stop of the defendant was illegal, evidence that the defendant straggled with the police officer, hit him, broke from his grasp, and bolted, only to be caught by another p 2015See, e.g., State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 (concluding that even if police officers entered an apartment unlawfully, evidence that the officers were attacked was admissible because the attack was “new criminal activity that is not subject to the exclusionary rule”); State v. Jones, 1992-NMCA-064 , ¶¶ 5, 16, 18, 114 N.M. 147 , 835 P.2d 863 (concluding that notwithstanding that the initial stop of the defendant was illegal, evidence that the defendant straggled with the police officer, hit him, broke from his grasp, and bolted, only to be caught by another p | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Doe
green
2 sentences2015See, e.g., State 8 v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 (concluding that 9 even if police officers entered an apartment unlawfully, evidence that the officers 10 were attacked was admissible because the attack was “new criminal activity that is 11 not subject to the exclusionary rule”); State v. Jones, 1992-NMCA-064 , ¶¶ 5, 16, 18, 12 114 N.M. 147 , 835 P.2d 863 (concluding that notwithstanding that the initial stop of 13 the defendant was illegal, evidence that the defendant struggled with the police 14 officer, hit him, broke from his grasp, and bolted, only to be 2015See, e.g., State v. Travison B., 2006-NMCA-146, ¶ 9 , 140 N.M. 783 , 149 P.3d 99 (concluding that even if police officers entered an apartment unlawfully, evidence that the officers were attacked was admissible because the attack was “new criminal activity that is not subject to the exclusionary rule”); State v. Jones, 1992-NMCA-064 , ¶¶ 5, 16, 18, 114 N.M. 147 , 835 P.2d 863 (concluding that notwithstanding that the initial stop of the defendant was illegal, evidence that the defendant straggled with the police officer, hit him, broke from his grasp, and bolted, only to be caught by another p | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Yazzie
green
1 sentence2024We agree. {9} The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution “provide overlapping protections against 1 unreasonable searches and seizures.” State v. Yazzie, 2016-NMSC-026, ¶ 17 , 376 P.3d 858 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Rector
green
2 sentences2022As such, we affirm the district court as right for any reason. 10 See State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (holding 11 that the appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for any 12 reason, so long as it is not unfair to the appellant); State v. Rector, 2005-NMCA- 13 014, ¶ 9, 136 N.M. 788 , 105 P.3d 341 (affirming a district court’s denial of a motion 14 to suppress that was based on the finding of reasonable suspicion on the alternative 15 grounds of attenuation). 2022As such, we affirm the district court as right for any reason. 10 See State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (holding 11 that the appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for any 12 reason, so long as it is not unfair to the appellant); State v. Rector, 2005-NMCA- 13 014, ¶ 9, 136 N.M. 788 , 105 P.3d 341 (affirming a district court’s denial of a motion 14 to suppress that was based on the finding of reasonable suspicion on the alternative 15 grounds of attenuation). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Ware
green
2 sentences2022BACKGROUND {2} The following facts are based on testimony presented during an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s State v. Ware, 1994-NMSC-091 , 118 N.M. 319 , 881 P.2d 679 (Ware Motion), and Foulenfont motions, and the statement of probable cause supporting the criminal complaint. 2022BACKGROUND {2} The following facts are based on testimony presented during an evidentiary hearing on Defendant’s State v. Ware, 1994-NMSC-091 , 118 N.M. 319 , 881 P.2d 679 (Ware Motion), and Foulenfont motions, and the statement of probable cause supporting the criminal complaint. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Gallegos
green
2 sentences2022As such, we affirm the district court as right for any reason. 10 See State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (holding 11 that the appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for any 12 reason, so long as it is not unfair to the appellant); State v. Rector, 2005-NMCA- 13 014, ¶ 9, 136 N.M. 788 , 105 P.3d 341 (affirming a district court’s denial of a motion 14 to suppress that was based on the finding of reasonable suspicion on the alternative 15 grounds of attenuation). 2022As such, we affirm the district court as right for any reason. 10 See State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (holding 11 that the appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for any 12 reason, so long as it is not unfair to the appellant); State v. Rector, 2005-NMCA- 13 014, ¶ 9, 136 N.M. 788 , 105 P.3d 341 (affirming a district court’s denial of a motion 14 to suppress that was based on the finding of reasonable suspicion on the alternative 15 grounds of attenuation). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Watchman green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Martinez v. Wooten Construction Co. neutral | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Osborne green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Haar green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Vallejos green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Jesse Joseph Trujillo v. George E. Sullivan green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| State v. Walsh green | 1 | 1992–1992 |
| Territory of New Mexico v. Lynch green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| State v. Bazan green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| United States v. Anthony F. Previte green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| State v. Stephens green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Curlee green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Kraul green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| State v. Gallegos green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
| Dobbert v. Florida green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
| State v. Gonzales green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Bell green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| State v. Puga green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.