24 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2025 5 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. Badonigreen2 sentences2023See State v. Bedoni, 2003-NMCA- 009, ¶ 7, 133 N.M. 257 , 62 P.3d 348 (holding that where a defendant “neither tendered a written instruction nor orally dictated one” and “[t]he record does not show that [the d]efendant informed the [district] judge of the specific language he wanted in a modified instruction,” the issue was not preserved for appellate review). 2023See State v. Bedoni, 2003-NMCA- 009, ¶ 7, 133 N.M. 257 , 62 P.3d 348 (holding that where a defendant “neither tendered a written instruction nor orally dictated one” and “[t]he record does not show that [the d]efendant informed the [district] judge of the specific language he wanted in a modified instruction,” the issue was not preserved for appellate review). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Silvasgreen2 sentences2023Notwithstanding the possible alternative violations of the 19 breaking and entering statute, the Court of Appeals in this case, relying upon State 14 1 v. Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 11 , 343 P.3d 616 , applied the strict-elements test 2 before applying the modified test “to examine other indicia of legislative intent” and 3 confirm that there was no double jeopardy violation under the strict-elements test. 4 Begaye, 2022-NMCA-010, ¶¶ 7-11 . 2023Notwithstanding the possible alternative violations of the 16 breaking and entering statute, the Court of Appeals in this case, relying upon State 17 v. Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 11 , 343 P.3d 616 , applied the strict-elements test 18 before applying the modified test “to examine other indicia of legislative intent” and 15 The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Begayegreen2 sentences2023See Begaye, 2022-NMCA-010, ¶ 11 . 15 Only application of the modified test was appropriate. 16 {24} In the present case, the modified test applies because the breaking and entering 17 statute provides alternative methods by which a defendant can violate the statute. 18 The state can prosecute an individual where “entry is obtained by fraud or deception, 19 or by . . . breaking or dismantling.” Section 30-14-8(A) (emphasis added). 2023Notwithstanding the possible alternative violations of the 19 breaking and entering statute, the Court of Appeals in this case, relying upon State 14 1 v. Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 11 , 343 P.3d 616 , applied the strict-elements test 2 before applying the modified test “to examine other indicia of legislative intent” and 3 confirm that there was no double jeopardy violation under the strict-elements test. 4 Begaye, 2022-NMCA-010, ¶¶ 7-11 . | 3 | 3 |
State v. Dowlinggreen2 sentences2017See State v. 3 Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 17 , 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 (“When a jury 4 instruction is facially erroneous, as when it directs the jury to find guilt based upon 5 a misstatement of the law, a finding of juror misdirection is unavoidable.”). 6 I. 2017See State v. 3 Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 17 , 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 (“When a jury 4 instruction is facially erroneous, as when it directs the jury to find guilt based upon 5 a misstatement of the law, a finding of juror misdirection is unavoidable.”). 6 I. | 2 | 2 |
Wei Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., Delaware Corporation McMi Food Company, a Texas Corporation Harry Lees, a Natural Persongreen2 sentences2015Id. at 1036 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {87} The outcome here stemmed from the lack of clarity of the UJI 13-1803-based instruction and the special verdict form, from the inadequate understanding of and response to the jury question, and from the failure to explain to the jury in closing argument how the awards should be made and divided, including what the “Estate” as shown in the special verdict form meant, as opposed to what “Virginia Saenz, Individually and on behalf of the estate” (as stated in the modified instruction) meant. 2015This rule retains vitality, and we have 17 noted that the federal rule is that failure to award damages does not by 18 itself render a verdict invalid. 19 Id. at 1036 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 20 {88} The outcome here stemmed from the lack of clarity of the UJI 13-1803-based 21 instruction and the special verdict form, from the inadequate understanding of and 22 response to the jury question, and from the failure to explain to the jury in closing 23 argument how the awards should be made and divided, including what the “Estate” 24 as shown in the special verdict form me | 2 | 2 |
Budagher v. Amrep Corp.green2 sentences1985See Budagher v. Amrep Corp., 97 N.M. 116 , 637 P.2d 547 (1981). 1985See Budagher v. Amrep Corp., 97 N.M. 116 , 637 P.2d 547 (1981). | 2 | 2 |
Gallegos v. Stategreen2 sentences2008See Gallegos v. State, 113 N.M. 339, 341 , 825 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1992) ("The party requesting the modification can preserve error by alerting the mind of the court to any vice claimed to be present in the uniform jury instruction."); cf. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 (holding that an argument in support of a modified instruction sufficiently alerted the trial court to the need for a modified instruction). 2008See Gallegos v. State, 113 N.M. 339, 341 , 825 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1992) ("The party requesting the modification can preserve error by alerting the mind of the court to any vice claimed to be present in the uniform jury instruction."); cf. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 (holding that an argument in support of a modified instruction sufficiently alerted the trial court to the need for a modified instruction). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Southworthgreen2 sentences2019See Southworth, 2002-NMCA-091, ¶¶ 15, 19 (describing the instructions that should be given, including that the jury should be instructed that a defendant has the right to stand his or her ground unless threatened with lawful force); State v. Denzel B., 2008-NMCA-118, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 746 , 192 P.3d 260 (“[T]he lawfulness of a victim’s conduct is . . . relevant to the availability of a self- defense instruction for a defendant.”). {16} Without the modified instruction, the jury would not have been asked to consider all relevant aspects of self-defense in this case. 2019See Southworth, 2002-NMCA-091, ¶¶ 15, 19 (describing the instructions that should be given, including that the jury should be instructed that a defendant has the right to stand his or her ground unless threatened with lawful force); State v. Denzel B., 2008-NMCA-118, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 746 , 192 P.3d 260 (“[T]he lawfulness of a victim’s conduct is . . . relevant to the availability of a self- defense instruction for a defendant.”). {16} Without the modified instruction, the jury would not have been asked to consider all relevant aspects of self-defense in this case. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen2 sentences2019See Anderson, 2016-NMCA-007, ¶ 14 (explaining that the no-retreat instruction is “critical to understanding the third element of a general self-defense instruction[,]” which assesses whether a defendant acted reasonably). 2019See Southworth, 2002-NMCA-091, ¶¶ 15, 18 (explaining that the jury must consider whether a potentially trespassing defendant was faced with unlawful force); see also Anderson, 2016-NMCA-007, ¶ 14 (stating a jury instruction may be necessary “when absence of clarification would render the jury’s understanding of the law deficient”). {17} We note Defendant repeatedly suggests in his briefing that the district court should have given an instruction based on UJI 14-5191 NMRA (self-defense; limitations; aggressor), rather than the instructions given, to address any limitations on the use of self-de | 1 | 1 |
Losey v. Norwest Bank of New Mexico, N.A.green2 sentences2018See In re Norwest Bank of N.M., N.A., 12 2003-NMCA-128, ¶ 30 , 134 N.M. 516 , 80 P.3d 98 (stating that this Court will not 13 search the record for evidence of preservation). 14 5. 2018See In re Norwest Bank of N.M., N.A., 12 2003-NMCA-128, ¶ 30 , 134 N.M. 516 , 80 P.3d 98 (stating that this Court will not 13 search the record for evidence of preservation). 14 5. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Dombosgreen1 sentence2011See Dombos, 2008-NMCA-035, ¶¶ 15 , 19 9 (holding that no double jeopardy violation occurred in a unit-of-prosecution case 10 where the judge specifically explained to the jury that it was required to find two 11 different incidents in order to return two guilty verdicts). 12 B. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Reedgreen2 sentences2002Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 ; State v. Reed, 62 N.M. 147, 150 , 306 P.2d 640, 642 (1957); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 ; State v. Diaz, 121 N.M. 28, 33-34 , 908 P.2d 258, 263-64 (Ct.App.1995). 2002Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 ; State v. Reed, 62 N.M. 147, 150 , 306 P.2d 640, 642 (1957); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 ; State v. Diaz, 121 N.M. 28, 33-34 , 908 P.2d 258, 263-64 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Diazgreen2 sentences2002Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 ; State v. Reed, 62 N.M. 147, 150 , 306 P.2d 640, 642 (1957); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 ; State v. Diaz, 121 N.M. 28, 33-34 , 908 P.2d 258, 263-64 (Ct.App.1995). 2002Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 ; State v. Reed, 62 N.M. 147, 150 , 306 P.2d 640, 642 (1957); State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 ; State v. Diaz, 121 N.M. 28, 33-34 , 908 P.2d 258, 263-64 (Ct.App.1995). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Porter
green
2 sentences2023The Court of Appeals 9 acknowledged that the modified test applies when a statute is written in the 10 alternative or “can be violated in more than one way,” id. ¶¶ 8, 11, and explained 11 that “‘the modified Blockburger analysis demands that we compare the elements of 12 the offense, looking at the [S]tate’s legal theory of how the statutes were violated.’” 13 Id. ¶ 8 (quoting Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 8 ). 14 {8} Applying the modified Blockburger analysis, the Court of Appeals initially 15 recognized that the purpose of “New Mexico’s breaking and entering statute is itself 16 grounded in comm 2023The Court of Appeals 13 acknowledged that the modified test applies when a statute is written in the 14 alternative or “can be violated in more than one way,” id. ¶¶ 8, 11, and explained 15 that “‘the modified Blockburger analysis demands that we compare the elements of 16 the offense, looking at the [S]tate’s legal theory of how the statutes were violated.’” 17 Id. ¶ 8 (quoting Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 8 ). 5 The slip opinion is the first version of an opinion released by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court. | 3 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Gaitan
green
2 sentences2013State v. Gaitan, 2002-NMSC-007, ¶ 10 , 131 N.M. 758 , 42 P.3d 1207 . 2013State v. Gaitan, 2002-NMSC-007, ¶ 10 , 131 N.M. 758 , 42 P.3d 1207 . | 3 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2008See Gallegos v. State, 113 N.M. 339, 341 , 825 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1992) ("The party requesting the modification can preserve error by alerting the mind of the court to any vice claimed to be present in the uniform jury instruction."); cf. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 (holding that an argument in support of a modified instruction sufficiently alerted the trial court to the need for a modified instruction). 2008See Gallegos v. State, 113 N.M. 339, 341 , 825 P.2d 1249, 1251 (1992) ("The party requesting the modification can preserve error by alerting the mind of the court to any vice claimed to be present in the uniform jury instruction."); cf. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 7 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 (holding that an argument in support of a modified instruction sufficiently alerted the trial court to the need for a modified instruction). | 2 | 2002–2008 |
Canon City & Cripple Creek Railroad v. Oxtoby
neutral
2 sentences1980Co. v. Oxtoby, 45 Colo. 214 , 100 P. 1127 (1908): “ * * * In our view of the facts, however, we do not think it makes any difference which rule is to be followed; for whether the relative rights of adjacent landowners as to surface waters is to be determined by the civil-law, or the common-law, or the so-called modified rule, under neither has one owner the right to collect in an artificial channel, or reservoir, or pond, surface water, and discharge it upon his neighbor’s lands to his injury, in a different manner from that in which it would naturally flow, if not interfered with, or to cast 1974Co. v. Oxtoby, 45 Colo. 214 , 100 P. 1127 (1909): “ ‘ * * * In our view of the facts, however, we do not think it makes any difference which rule is to be followed; for whether the relative rights of adjacent landowners as to surface waters is to be determined by the civil-law, or the common-law, or the so-called modified rule, under neither has one owner the right to collect in an artificial channel, or reservoir, or pond, surface water, and discharge it upon his neighbor’s lands to his injury, in a different manner from that in which it would naturally flow, if not interfered with, or to cas | 2 | 1974–1980 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
1 sentence2025To determine whether the Legislature intended to create separately punishable offenses under these circumstances, we generally engage in a modified analysis under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Mora
green
2 sentences2025This Court has previously held in State v. Mora, 2003- NMCA-072, ¶ 22, 133 N.M. 746 , 69 P.3d 256 , that CSCM and CSPM “cannot be characterized as lesser included and greater-inclusive crimes because they each contain different elements and stand independently in relation to one another.” {27} This conclusion creates a presumption that these are separate offenses and therefore the Legislature intended to authorize separate punishments. 2025This Court has previously held in State v. Mora, 2003- NMCA-072, ¶ 22, 133 N.M. 746 , 69 P.3d 256 , that CSCM and CSPM “cannot be characterized as lesser included and greater-inclusive crimes because they each contain different elements and stand independently in relation to one another.” {27} This conclusion creates a presumption that these are separate offenses and therefore the Legislature intended to authorize separate punishments. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Holt
green
1 sentence2023Begaye, 2022-NMCA-010, ¶¶ 11-12 (text only) 3 (citing State v. Holt, 2 2016-NMSC-011, ¶ 15 , 368 P.3d 409 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. DENZEL B.
green
2 sentences2019See Southworth, 2002-NMCA-091, ¶¶ 15, 19 (describing the instructions that should be given, including that the jury should be instructed that a defendant has the right to stand his or her ground unless threatened with lawful force); State v. Denzel B., 2008-NMCA-118, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 746 , 192 P.3d 260 (“[T]he lawfulness of a victim’s conduct is . . . relevant to the availability of a self- defense instruction for a defendant.”). {16} Without the modified instruction, the jury would not have been asked to consider all relevant aspects of self-defense in this case. 2019See Southworth, 2002-NMCA-091, ¶¶ 15, 19 (describing the instructions that should be given, including that the jury should be instructed that a defendant has the right to stand his or her ground unless threatened with lawful force); State v. Denzel B., 2008-NMCA-118, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 746 , 192 P.3d 260 (“[T]he lawfulness of a victim’s conduct is . . . relevant to the availability of a self- defense instruction for a defendant.”). {16} Without the modified instruction, the jury would not have been asked to consider all relevant aspects of self-defense in this case. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Kenneth J. Notari v. Denver Water Department
green
1 sentence2015Under the modified test, a majority plaintiff may state a prima facie case by either using the background circumstances test or by showing “indirect evidence sufficient to support a reasonable probability, that but for the plaintiffs status [as a member of the majority] the challenged [action] would have favored the plaintiff.” Id. {25} Though Notari attempted to lower the background circumstances standard by providing an alternative way for majority plaintiffs to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, it is not clear how the alternative test is any easier to meet. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Benavidez v. City of Gallup
green
2 sentences2015On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in giving the modified instruction because the bracketed sentence only applies to the “inherent and potential hazards of the proposed treatment” as stated in UJI 13-1104B(3) and not to the “alternatives for treatment” set forth in UJI 13-1104B(2). {13} We review de novo the district court’s instruction to the jury, See Benavidez v. City of Gallup, 2007-NMSC-026, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 808 , 161 P.3d 853 (“We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether they correctly state the law and are supported by the evidence 2015On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in giving the modified instruction because the bracketed sentence only applies to the “inherent and potential hazards of the proposed treatment” as stated in UJI 13-1104B(3) and not to the “alternatives for treatment” set forth in UJI 13-1104B(2). {13} We review de novo the district court’s instruction to the jury, See Benavidez v. City of Gallup, 2007-NMSC-026, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 808 , 161 P.3d 853 (“We review jury instructions de novo to determine whether they correctly state the law and are supported by the evidence | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Mattox v. Mattox
green
2 sentences1992Mattox acknowledged, however, that, unlike a case where the employee spouse receives the entire pension, offset by an award of property to the non-employee spouse, which was the result in Mattox , under the modified rule mandated by Schweitzer , "the risks and uncertainties of future benefits are shared equally by the parties." Mattox v. Mattox, 105 N.M. at 484 -85 n. 3, 734 P.2d at 264 -65 n. 3. 1992Mattox acknowledged, however, that, unlike a case where the employee spouse receives the entire pension, offset by an award of property to the non-employee spouse, which was the result in Mattox , under the modified rule mandated by Schweitzer , "the risks and uncertainties of future benefits are shared equally by the parties." Mattox v. Mattox, 105 N.M. at 484 -85 n. 3, 734 P.2d at 264 -65 n. 3. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
In Re Marriage of Gillmore
green
2 sentences1992In Gillmore, the California Supreme Court held that the husband could not time his retirement to deprive his wife of an equal share of the community’s interest in the pension. 629 P.2d at 4 . 1992In Gillmore, the California Supreme Court held that the husband could not time his retirement to deprive his wife of an equal share of the community's interest in the pension. 629 P.2d at 4 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Little v. Price
neutral
1 sentence1980Co. v. Oxtoby, 45 Colo. 214 , 100 P. 1127 (1908): “ * * * In our view of the facts, however, we do not think it makes any difference which rule is to be followed; for whether the relative rights of adjacent landowners as to surface waters is to be determined by the civil-law, or the common-law, or the so-called modified rule, under neither has one owner the right to collect in an artificial channel, or reservoir, or pond, surface water, and discharge it upon his neighbor’s lands to his injury, in a different manner from that in which it would naturally flow, if not interfered with, or to cast | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.