27 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2025 4 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. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2024We do not discern any such circumstances and therefore conclude that no fundamental error occurred as a result of the district court’s admission of the probation officer’s testimony as to the drug test results. {4} Defendant contends that the admission of the relevant testimony implicated her confrontation rights because it lacked the proper foundation to establish either how the drug test was administered or how the test’s results were interpreted. [BIC 21] Relying on State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶¶ 17-18 , 130 N.M. 602 , 28 P.3d 1143 , [BIC 19] Defendant asserts that “there is no indicat 2024We do not discern any such circumstances and therefore conclude that no fundamental error occurred as a result of the district court’s admission of the probation officer’s testimony as to the drug test results. {4} Defendant contends that the admission of the relevant testimony implicated her confrontation rights because it lacked the proper foundation to establish either how the drug test was administered or how the test’s results were interpreted. [BIC 21] Relying on State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶¶ 17-18 , 130 N.M. 602 , 28 P.3d 1143 , [BIC 19] Defendant asserts that “there is no indicat | 2 | 2 |
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences2019The district court did 8 not explain its decision to exclude the evidence or mention any consideration of the 9 factors identified in State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044 , 150 N.M. 745 , 266 P.3d 25 , 10 i.e., the culpability of the State, prejudice to Defendant or the court, or the 11 availability of lesser sanctions. 2019The district court did 8 not explain its decision to exclude the evidence or mention any consideration of the 9 factors identified in State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044 , 150 N.M. 745 , 266 P.3d 25 , 10 i.e., the culpability of the State, prejudice to Defendant or the court, or the 11 availability of lesser sanctions. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Le Miergreen2 sentences2019In Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20 we held that district courts “must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude [evidence] within the framework articulated in Harper[.]” However, the district court’s statements at the December and January hearings sufficiently demonstrate that the court found the State culpable in failing to test the suspected cocaine in a timely manner and that this failure caused prejudice to the court’s efficient administration of its docket. 2017See id. ¶ 19 (noting that delayed disclosure results 15 in prejudice when the delay prevents defense counsel from effectively preparing and 16 presenting the defendant’s case); see also Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 25 (“When 17 a court orders a party to provide discovery within a given time frame, failure to 18 comply with that order causes prejudice both to the opposing party and to the court.”). 8 1 {14} It is important to note that since defense counsel was not provided with the 2 drug analyst’s report, she had no information as to which chemist prepared the report 3 or what information to rev | 1 | 2 |
State v. Franklingreen2 sentences2012Accordingly, we 14 conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s revocation. 15 Defendant Was Not Subject to an Illegal Sentence 16 Defendant contends that, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 17 P.2d 982 , 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. 18 App. 1985 ), the State violated the terms of his probation agreement by filing an 19 amended supplemental criminal information alleging three prior felonies. 2010First, the State failed to 13 disclose the correct report containing the drug test results for a drug test performed on 14 January 6, 2010, which supported the current probation violation report and the 15 motion to revoke Defendant’s probation filed on January 11, 2010, and January 13, 16 2010, respectively, until about ten minutes before the probation violation hearing. 17 [DS 2; RP 148, tape log at 4:22:10 - 4:23:27 PM] Second, the State then tried to 18 support the current allegations regarding Defendant’s violation of probation condition 19 No. 9 with a report of drug test results for a d | 1 | 2 |
State v. Guthriegreen2 sentences2011See 8 State v. Guthrie, 2009-NMCA-036, ¶¶ 3-4, 15 , 145 N.M. 761 , 204 P.3d 1271 ; State 9 v. Phillips, 2006-NMCA-001, ¶¶ 11-16 , 138 N.M. 730 , 126 P.3d 546 . 2011See 8 State v. Guthrie, 2009-NMCA-036, ¶¶ 3-4, 15 , 145 N.M. 761 , 204 P.3d 1271 ; State 9 v. Phillips, 2006-NMCA-001, ¶¶ 11-16 , 138 N.M. 730 , 126 P.3d 546 . | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Children Youth & Families Department v. Arthur C.green1 sentence2023The record in this case indicates that CYFD made efforts to assist Mother in entering an inpatient treatment program, but upon securing her a referral to one, Mother was not interested in attending. [2 RP 479] {4} Mother did sporadically participate in certain aspects of her treatment plan: she completed parenting classes; she attended half of the in-person visits CYFD arranged; she agreed to go with CYFD to perform a drug test; and she enrolled in drug court. [2 RP 476-79] However, the record indicates that Mother’s lack of success was the result of her failure to meaningfully engage with the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waregreen2 sentences2019See State v. Ware, 1993-NMCA-041 , ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 339 , 850 P.2d 1042 (“A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice.”); State v. Edwards, 1981-NMCA-119 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 141 , 637 P.2d 572 (“A nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal. . . . [T]he accused may be reindicted or reinformed against.” (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Rhodes, 1967-NMSC-052 , 77 N.M. 536 , 425 P.2d 47 )). {7} We recognize that the district court’s order in this case included no findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its decision to exclude the 2019See State v. Ware, 1993-NMCA-041 , ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 339 , 850 P.2d 1042 (“A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice.”); State v. Edwards, 1981-NMCA-119 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 141 , 637 P.2d 572 (“A nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal. . . . [T]he accused may be reindicted or reinformed against.” (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Rhodes, 1967-NMSC-052 , 77 N.M. 536 , 425 P.2d 47 )). {7} We recognize that the district court’s order in this case included no findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its decision to exclude the | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garzagreen1 sentence2018See Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 36 (“If the defendant asserts 12 that the delay caused the unavailability of a witness and impaired the defense, the 13 defendant must state with particularity what exculpatory testimony would have 14 been offered, and the defendant must also present evidence that the delay caused 15 the witness’s unavailability.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citations 16 omitted)). 17 {24} We therefore conclude that Defendant has not made a cognizable showing of 18 prejudice. 19 5. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Akergreen2 sentences2017See 14 State v. Aker, 2005-NMCA-063, ¶ 34 , 137 N.M. 561 , 113 P.3d 384 (setting forth the 15 requirements to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel). 16 Moreover, our Supreme Court has expressed a preference that ineffective assistance 17 of counsel claims be adjudicated in habeas corpus proceedings, rather than on direct 18 appeal. 2017See 14 State v. Aker, 2005-NMCA-063, ¶ 34 , 137 N.M. 561 , 113 P.3d 384 (setting forth the 15 requirements to establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel). 16 Moreover, our Supreme Court has expressed a preference that ineffective assistance 17 of counsel claims be adjudicated in habeas corpus proceedings, rather than on direct 18 appeal. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rojogreen1 sentence2017See Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 19 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. TONY G.green2 sentences2012See State v. Mora, 1997- 4 NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 (providing that an appellate court 5 “does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as 6 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict”). 7 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the 8 probation officer’s testimony about his admission was not true, that Defendant was 9 not really admitting to illegal drug use, and that the drug test did not confirm heroin 10 use. [MIO 6] Again, we do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility on appeal. 11 Instea 2012See State v. Mora, 1997- 4 NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 (providing that an appellate court 5 “does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as 6 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict”). 7 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the 8 probation officer’s testimony about his admission was not true, that Defendant was 9 not really admitting to illegal drug use, and that the drug test did not confirm heroin 10 use. [MIO 6] Again, we do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility on appeal. 11 Instea | 1 | 1 |
State v. Boyergreen2 sentences2012Accordingly, we 14 conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s revocation. 15 Defendant Was Not Subject to an Illegal Sentence 16 Defendant contends that, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 17 P.2d 982 , 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. 18 App. 1985 ), the State violated the terms of his probation agreement by filing an 19 amended supplemental criminal information alleging three prior felonies. 2012Accordingly, we 14 conclude there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s revocation. 15 Defendant Was Not Subject to an Illegal Sentence 16 Defendant contends that, pursuant to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 17 P.2d 982 , 984 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. 18 App. 1985 ), the State violated the terms of his probation agreement by filing an 19 amended supplemental criminal information alleging three prior felonies. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moragreen2 sentences2012See State v. Mora, 1997- 4 NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 (providing that an appellate court 5 “does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as 6 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict”). 7 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the 8 probation officer’s testimony about his admission was not true, that Defendant was 9 not really admitting to illegal drug use, and that the drug test did not confirm heroin 10 use. [MIO 6] Again, we do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility on appeal. 11 Instea 2012See State v. Mora, 1997- 4 NMSC-060, ¶ 27, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 (providing that an appellate court 5 “does not weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the fact finder as 6 long as there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict”). 7 In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant continues to argue that the 8 probation officer’s testimony about his admission was not true, that Defendant was 9 not really admitting to illegal drug use, and that the drug test did not confirm heroin 10 use. [MIO 6] Again, we do not reweigh evidence or assess credibility on appeal. 11 Instea | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moorered1 sentence2011See State v. Moore, 109 13 N.M. 119 , 129, 782 P.2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 1989), superceded by rule on other 14 grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 (Ct. App. 15 1991). 16 Defendant asserts that he was denied his due process right to confront certain 17 declarants who made statements that Defendant had admitted to using drugs while on 18 probation and statements that the circumstances of Defendant’s drug test were not 19 “tightly controlled.” [MIO 8; RP 125, 132-33] These declarants did not testify at the 8 1 hearing, and the evidence came in through the testimony | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salgadogreen2 sentences2011See State v. Moore, 109 13 N.M. 119 , 129, 782 P.2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 1989), superceded by rule on other 14 grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 (Ct. App. 15 1991). 16 Defendant asserts that he was denied his due process right to confront certain 17 declarants who made statements that Defendant had admitted to using drugs while on 18 probation and statements that the circumstances of Defendant’s drug test were not 19 “tightly controlled.” [MIO 8; RP 125, 132-33] These declarants did not testify at the 8 1 hearing, and the evidence came in through the testimony 2011See State v. Moore, 109 13 N.M. 119 , 129, 782 P.2d 91, 101 (Ct. App. 1989), superceded by rule on other 14 grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 (Ct. App. 15 1991). 16 Defendant asserts that he was denied his due process right to confront certain 17 declarants who made statements that Defendant had admitted to using drugs while on 18 probation and statements that the circumstances of Defendant’s drug test were not 19 “tightly controlled.” [MIO 8; RP 125, 132-33] These declarants did not testify at the 8 1 hearing, and the evidence came in through the testimony | 1 | 1 |
| Crawford v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chandler v. Millergreen | 1 | 1 |
| AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL 33 v. Thornburghgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Yanezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State Ex Rel. Murphy v. Morleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Erickson K.
green
2 sentences2019To the extent that Defendant’s probation officer 10 testified that he had missed a required drug test and did not also testify to agreeing to 11 reschedule the drug test with Defendant, this presents an issue of credibility for the 12 district court to decide. 13 {3} As this Court noted in our notice of proposed disposition, we must “view[] the 14 evidence in a light most favorable to the State and indulg[e] all reasonable inferences 15 in favor of the [district] court’s judgment.” State v. Erickson K., 2002-NMCA-058 , 16 ¶ 21, 132 N.M. 258 , 46 P.3d 1258 . 2019To the extent that Defendant’s probation officer 10 testified that he had missed a required drug test and did not also testify to agreeing to 11 reschedule the drug test with Defendant, this presents an issue of credibility for the 12 district court to decide. 13 {3} As this Court noted in our notice of proposed disposition, we must “view[] the 14 evidence in a light most favorable to the State and indulg[e] all reasonable inferences 15 in favor of the [district] court’s judgment.” State v. Erickson K., 2002-NMCA-058 , 16 ¶ 21, 132 N.M. 258 , 46 P.3d 1258 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Phillips
green
2 sentences2011See 8 State v. Guthrie, 2009-NMCA-036, ¶¶ 3-4, 15 , 145 N.M. 761 , 204 P.3d 1271 ; State 9 v. Phillips, 2006-NMCA-001, ¶¶ 11-16 , 138 N.M. 730 , 126 P.3d 546 . 2011See 8 State v. Guthrie, 2009-NMCA-036, ¶¶ 3-4, 15 , 145 N.M. 761 , 204 P.3d 1271 ; State 9 v. Phillips, 2006-NMCA-001, ¶¶ 11-16 , 138 N.M. 730 , 126 P.3d 546 . | 2 | 2010–2011 |
State v. McCoy
green
2 sentences1994Even though our subsequent decision in McCoy held that a drug test alone is insufficient evidence of possession of cocaine, McCoy also indicated that some amount of corroborative evidence in addition to the drug test could suffice to support a conviction for possession of cocaine. 116 N.M. at 497 , 864 P.2d at 313 . 1994Even though our subsequent decision in McCoy held that a drug test alone is insufficient evidence of possession of cocaine, McCoy also indicated that some amount of corroborative evidence in addition to the drug test could suffice to support a conviction for possession of cocaine. 116 N.M. at 497 , 864 P.2d at 313 . | 2 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2025Sufficiency of the Evidence {9} Defendant asserts that the State “did not prove the violations to a reasonable certainty.” [MIO 10-13] In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that Defendant admitted he would test positive on a drug test as a result of his contact with a person detrimental to his supervision. [CN 2-3] See State v. Sanchez, 1990-NMCA-017 , ¶ 10, 109 N.M. 718 , 790 P.2d 515 (concluding that “a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation based on defendant’s extrajudicial admission that he or she violated the terms of probation”), abrogated on other grounds b 2025Sufficiency of the Evidence {9} Defendant asserts that the State “did not prove the violations to a reasonable certainty.” [MIO 10-13] In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that Defendant admitted he would test positive on a drug test as a result of his contact with a person detrimental to his supervision. [CN 2-3] See State v. Sanchez, 1990-NMCA-017 , ¶ 10, 109 N.M. 718 , 790 P.2d 515 (concluding that “a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation based on defendant’s extrajudicial admission that he or she violated the terms of probation”), abrogated on other grounds b | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Tollardo
green
2 sentences2025Sufficiency of the Evidence {9} Defendant asserts that the State “did not prove the violations to a reasonable certainty.” [MIO 10-13] In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that Defendant admitted he would test positive on a drug test as a result of his contact with a person detrimental to his supervision. [CN 2-3] See State v. Sanchez, 1990-NMCA-017 , ¶ 10, 109 N.M. 718 , 790 P.2d 515 (concluding that “a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation based on defendant’s extrajudicial admission that he or she violated the terms of probation”), abrogated on other grounds b 2025Sufficiency of the Evidence {9} Defendant asserts that the State “did not prove the violations to a reasonable certainty.” [MIO 10-13] In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that Defendant admitted he would test positive on a drug test as a result of his contact with a person detrimental to his supervision. [CN 2-3] See State v. Sanchez, 1990-NMCA-017 , ¶ 10, 109 N.M. 718 , 790 P.2d 515 (concluding that “a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation based on defendant’s extrajudicial admission that he or she violated the terms of probation”), abrogated on other grounds b | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2025Sufficiency of the Evidence {9} Defendant asserts that the State “did not prove the violations to a reasonable certainty.” [MIO 10-13] In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that Defendant admitted he would test positive on a drug test as a result of his contact with a person detrimental to his supervision. [CN 2-3] See State v. Sanchez, 1990-NMCA-017 , ¶ 10, 109 N.M. 718 , 790 P.2d 515 (concluding that “a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation based on defendant’s extrajudicial admission that he or she violated the terms of probation”), abrogated on other grounds b 2025Sufficiency of the Evidence {9} Defendant asserts that the State “did not prove the violations to a reasonable certainty.” [MIO 10-13] In our calendar notice, we proposed to affirm on the basis that Defendant admitted he would test positive on a drug test as a result of his contact with a person detrimental to his supervision. [CN 2-3] See State v. Sanchez, 1990-NMCA-017 , ¶ 10, 109 N.M. 718 , 790 P.2d 515 (concluding that “a trial court may revoke a defendant’s probation based on defendant’s extrajudicial admission that he or she violated the terms of probation”), abrogated on other grounds b | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Flores
green
2 sentences2020Linda stated that every time Defendant became angry with Jessica, he would say “I should go down the street, kick in her door, shoot her, shoot her boyfriend, and shoot her two bastard children.” Defendant made that statement to Linda roughly six to ten times. {31} “We examine the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 25 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 . 2020Linda stated that every time Defendant became angry with Jessica, he would say “I should go down the street, kick in her door, shoot her, shoot her boyfriend, and shoot her two bastard children.” Defendant made that statement to Linda roughly six to ten times. {31} “We examine the admission of evidence for abuse of discretion.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 25 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Edwards
green
2 sentences2019See State v. Ware, 1993-NMCA-041 , ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 339 , 850 P.2d 1042 (“A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice.”); State v. Edwards, 1981-NMCA-119 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 141 , 637 P.2d 572 (“A nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal. . . . [T]he accused may be reindicted or reinformed against.” (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Rhodes, 1967-NMSC-052 , 77 N.M. 536 , 425 P.2d 47 )). {7} We recognize that the district court’s order in this case included no findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its decision to exclude the 2019See State v. Ware, 1993-NMCA-041 , ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 339 , 850 P.2d 1042 (“A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice.”); State v. Edwards, 1981-NMCA-119 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 141 , 637 P.2d 572 (“A nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal. . . . [T]he accused may be reindicted or reinformed against.” (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Rhodes, 1967-NMSC-052 , 77 N.M. 536 , 425 P.2d 47 )). {7} We recognize that the district court’s order in this case included no findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its decision to exclude the | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Rhodes
green
2 sentences2019See State v. Ware, 1993-NMCA-041 , ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 339 , 850 P.2d 1042 (“A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice.”); State v. Edwards, 1981-NMCA-119 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 141 , 637 P.2d 572 (“A nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal. . . . [T]he accused may be reindicted or reinformed against.” (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Rhodes, 1967-NMSC-052 , 77 N.M. 536 , 425 P.2d 47 )). {7} We recognize that the district court’s order in this case included no findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its decision to exclude the 2019See State v. Ware, 1993-NMCA-041 , ¶ 8, 115 N.M. 339 , 850 P.2d 1042 (“A nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice.”); State v. Edwards, 1981-NMCA-119 , ¶ 6, 97 N.M. 141 , 637 P.2d 572 (“A nolle prosequi does not amount to an acquittal. . . . [T]he accused may be reindicted or reinformed against.” (emphasis omitted) (citing State v. Rhodes, 1967-NMSC-052 , 77 N.M. 536 , 425 P.2d 47 )). {7} We recognize that the district court’s order in this case included no findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining its decision to exclude the | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Lytle v. Jordan
green
2 sentences2017Because Defendant has not pointed out any errors in the 17 notice of proposed disposition, we hold his convictions were supported by sufficient 18 evidence. 19 {4} Defendant next continues to argue he received ineffective assistance of counsel 2 1 because trial counsel stipulated to admission of the drug test results, rather than 2 requiring the State to admit the results through the analyst who conducted the testing. 3 [MIO 7–8] Defendant admits trial counsel’s stipulation to the admission of evidence 4 was a strategic decision, but the decision removed the determination of the identity of 5 2017Because Defendant has not pointed out any errors in the 17 notice of proposed disposition, we hold his convictions were supported by sufficient 18 evidence. 19 {4} Defendant next continues to argue he received ineffective assistance of counsel 2 1 because trial counsel stipulated to admission of the drug test results, rather than 2 requiring the State to admit the results through the analyst who conducted the testing. 3 [MIO 7–8] Defendant admits trial counsel’s stipulation to the admission of evidence 4 was a strategic decision, but the decision removed the determination of the identity of 5 | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hester
green
2 sentences2015State v. Hester, 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 218 , 979 P.2d 729 . 11 The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove both prongs. 2015State v. Hester, 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 218 , 979 P.2d 729 . 11 The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove both prongs. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Chavez v. City of Albuquerque
green
1 sentence2012We begin by discussing these cases. {27} In Chavez, 1998-NMCA-004, ¶ 2 , the plaintiff filed a complaint in district court alleging breach of contract, denial of his right to privacy, violations of his right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, violations of his rights under the Open Meetings Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 10-15-1 to -4 (1974, as amended through 2009), and violations of both his procedural and substantive due process rights following termination for failing a drug test. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Elbert Strickland v. City of Albuquerque, and Arthur Blumenfeld, ph.d., Chief Administrative Officer
green
1 sentence2012Id. ¶ 28. {28} In Strickland, 130 F.3d at 1410 , the plaintiff filed a grievance after the city terminated his employment for failing a drug test. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Shehane v. Station Casino & CNA Insurance
green
1 sentence2010Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Speer v. Sammons Trucking & Fireman's Fund Insurance green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Kennedy v. Heredia green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Guthrie
green
1 sentence2010Because 18 the docketing statement refers this Court to cases examining a defendant’s right of 19 confrontation in probation revocation hearings, we addressed this issue accordingly. 2 1 [DS 4] See State v. Guthrie, 2009-NMCA-036 , 145 N.M. 761 , 204 P.3d 1271 , cert. 2 granted, 2009-NMCERT-003 , 146 N.M. 604 , 213 P.3d 508 ; State v. Phillips, 3 2006-NMCA-001 , 138 N.M. 730 , 126 P.3d 546 . 4 In her memorandum in opposition to our notice, Defendant argues that this 5 Court’s opinion in Guthrie mandates a remand for a fair probation violation hearing 6 in which Defendant is provided her right | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| City of Artesia v. Carter green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.