Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
28 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2024 3 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. Handagreen2 sentences2024“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.” State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (text only) (citation omitted). 2024“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.” State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (text only) (citation omitted). | 8 | 14 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2015See State v. Young, 1994-NMCA-061 , ¶ 5, 117 N.M. 688 , 875 P.2d 1119 7 (“[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very 8 error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.”). 9 VI. 2012See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Roven, 94 N.M. 273, 275 , 609 P.2d 720, 722 (1980) (recognizing the general policy against a waiver of arbitration rights unless one party’s conduct has given it an undue advantage or resulted in prejudice to another); see also State v. Young, 117 N.M. 688, 690 , 875 P.2d 1119 , 1121 (Ct. App. 1994) (“[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.”). | 6 | 6 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2015See State v. Young, 1994-NMCA-061 , ¶ 5, 117 N.M. 688 , 875 P.2d 1119 7 (“[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very 8 error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.”). 9 VI. 2012See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Roven, 94 N.M. 273, 275 , 609 P.2d 720, 722 (1980) (recognizing the general policy against a waiver of arbitration rights unless one party’s conduct has given it an undue advantage or resulted in prejudice to another); see also State v. Young, 117 N.M. 688, 690 , 875 P.2d 1119 , 1121 (Ct. App. 1994) (“[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.”). | 3 | 6 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2021See State v. Collins, 2007-NMCA-106, ¶ 27 , 142 N.M. 419 , 166 P.3d 480 (stating “to allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). court did not commit fundamental error in instructing the jury on the assault on a jail instruction. 2021See State v. Collins, 2007-NMCA-106, ¶ 27 , 142 N.M. 419 , 166 P.3d 480 (stating “to allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). court did not commit fundamental error in instructing the jury on the assault on a jail instruction. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Padillagreen2 sentences1994See Padilla, 104 N.M. at 451 , 722 P.2d at 702 ; cf. Cox v. Cox, 108 N.M. 598, 603 , 775 P.2d 1315, 1320 (Ct.App.) (invited error will not be a basis for reversal), cert. denied, 108 N.M. 624 , 776 P.2d 846 (1989). 1994See Padilla, 104 N.M. at 451 , 722 P.2d at 702 ; cf. Cox v. Cox, 108 N.M. 598, 603 , 775 P.2d 1315, 1320 (Ct.App.) (invited error will not be a basis for reversal), cert. denied, 108 N.M. 624 , 776 P.2d 846 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
Cox v. Coxgreen2 sentences1994See Padilla, 104 N.M. at 451 , 722 P.2d at 702 ; cf. Cox v. Cox, 108 N.M. 598, 603 , 775 P.2d 1315, 1320 (Ct.App.) (invited error will not be a basis for reversal), cert. denied, 108 N.M. 624 , 776 P.2d 846 (1989). 1994See Padilla, 104 N.M. at 451 , 722 P.2d at 702 ; cf. Cox v. Cox, 108 N.M. 598, 603 , 775 P.2d 1315, 1320 (Ct.App.) (invited error will not be a basis for reversal), cert. denied, 108 N.M. 624 , 776 P.2d 846 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jimgreen2 sentences2022This Court has been clear that “a party may not invite error and then proceed to complain about it on appeal.” State v. Jim, 2014-NMCA-089, ¶ 22 , 332 P.3d 870 ; see State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 2020See State v. Jim, 2014-NMCA-089, ¶ 22 , 332 P.3d 870 (“It is well established that a party may not invite error and then proceed to complain about it on appeal.”); State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). | 1 | 2 |
Sanchez v. Wileygreen2 sentences2019See Sanchez v. Wiley, 11 1997-NMCA-105, ¶ 17 , 124 N.M. 47 , 946 P.2d 650 (indicating that lay opinion 12 testimony under Rule 11-701 is permissible when it is rationally based on the 13 perception of the witness and helpful in the determination of a fact at issue). 2019See Sanchez v. Wiley, 11 1997-NMCA-105, ¶ 17 , 124 N.M. 47 , 946 P.2d 650 (indicating that lay opinion 12 testimony under Rule 11-701 is permissible when it is rationally based on the 13 perception of the witness and helpful in the determination of a fact at issue). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Watchmangreen2 sentences2013See State v. Watchman, 2005-NMCA-125, ¶ 13 , 138 N.M. 5 488, 122 P.3d 855 (“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain 6 about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of 7 justice.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 8 “[F]undamental error has no application where [the d]efendant, by [his] own 9 actions, invites the error.” Id. 2013See State v. Watchman, 2005-NMCA-125, ¶ 13 , 138 N.M. 5 488, 122 P.3d 855 (“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain 6 about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of 7 justice.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 8 “[F]undamental error has no application where [the d]efendant, by [his] own 9 actions, invites the error.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Rovengreen2 sentences2012See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Roven, 94 N.M. 273, 275 , 609 P.2d 720, 722 (1980) (recognizing the general policy against a waiver of arbitration rights unless one party’s conduct has given it an undue advantage or resulted in prejudice to another); see also State v. Young, 117 N.M. 688, 690 , 875 P.2d 1119 , 1121 (Ct. App. 1994) (“[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.”). 2012See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Roven, 94 N.M. 273, 275 , 609 P.2d 720, 722 (1980) (recognizing the general policy against a waiver of arbitration rights unless one party’s conduct has given it an undue advantage or resulted in prejudice to another); see also State v. Young, 117 N.M. 688, 690 , 875 P.2d 1119 , 1121 (Ct. App. 1994) (“[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration of justice.”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2009“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently 11 complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration 12 of justice.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] defendant cannot 13 be permitted . . . to reverse his previous position simply because he gambled and lost.” 14 State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 252 , 901 P.2d 178, 183 (1995) (internal quotation 15 marks and citation omitted). 2009“To allow a defendant to invite error and to subsequently 11 complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and equitable administration 12 of justice.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] defendant cannot 13 be permitted . . . to reverse his previous position simply because he gambled and lost.” 14 State v. Sanchez, 120 N.M. 247, 252 , 901 P.2d 178, 183 (1995) (internal quotation 15 marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Raelgreen2 sentences2009See Rael, 5 100 N.M. at 197 , 668 P.2d at 313 ; Moore, 109 N.M. at 129 , 782 P.2d at 101 . 6 For the reasons discussed above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s 7 judgment and sentence. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ___________________________________ 10 RODERICK T. 2009See Rael, 5 100 N.M. at 197 , 668 P.2d at 313 ; Moore, 109 N.M. at 129 , 782 P.2d at 101 . 6 For the reasons discussed above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s 7 judgment and sentence. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ___________________________________ 10 RODERICK T. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
1 sentence2020“To evaluate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 . . . (1984)[.]” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M.719, 204 P.3d 44 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Dylan J.
green
2 sentences2020“To evaluate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 . . . (1984)[.]” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M.719, 204 P.3d 44 . 2020“To evaluate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two-prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 . . . (1984)[.]” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M.719, 204 P.3d 44 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Behrens v. Gateway Court, LLC
neutral
1 sentence2014Further, “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 2 defendant’s own invited mistakes.” Id. “[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and 3 to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and 4 equitable administration of justice.” State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 5 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation 6 omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Baca
green
2 sentences2011We noted that because there is a preference for 5 habeas corpus proceedings over remand, “[a] record on appeal that provides a basis 6 for remanding to the [district] court for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective 7 assistance of counsel is rare[,]” State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 25 , 124 N .M. 333, 8 950 P.2d 776 , and we proposed to conclude that Defendant’s case was not one of 9 those rare cases. 10 In response, Defendant repeats the arguments made in his docketing statement, 11 without providing new facts of record or authority that would persuade this Court that 12 its proposal was erro 2011We noted that because there is a preference for 5 habeas corpus proceedings over remand, “[a] record on appeal that provides a basis 6 for remanding to the [district] court for an evidentiary hearing on ineffective 7 assistance of counsel is rare[,]” State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 25 , 124 N .M. 333, 8 950 P.2d 776 , and we proposed to conclude that Defendant’s case was not one of 9 those rare cases. 10 In response, Defendant repeats the arguments made in his docketing statement, 11 without providing new facts of record or authority that would persuade this Court that 12 its proposal was erro | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Moore
red
2 sentences2009See Rael, 5 100 N.M. at 197 , 668 P.2d at 313 ; Moore, 109 N.M. at 129 , 782 P.2d at 101 . 6 For the reasons discussed above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s 7 judgment and sentence. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ___________________________________ 10 RODERICK T. 2009See Rael, 5 100 N.M. at 197 , 668 P.2d at 313 ; Moore, 109 N.M. at 129 , 782 P.2d at 101 . 6 For the reasons discussed above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s 7 judgment and sentence. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 ___________________________________ 10 RODERICK T. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.