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.
151 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2026 35 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. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2025This test is “sometimes referred to as the ‘strict elements’ test.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 7 , 476 P.3d 1201 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 31 , 306 P.3d 426 ). {8} However, “[w]hen dealing with statutes that are vague and unspecific or written with many alternatives, we apply a modified version of the Blockburger test.” State v. Arguello, 2024-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 557 P.3d 1018 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2024-NMCERT-009 (S-1-SC-40560); see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (adopting a modified version 2025This test is “sometimes referred to as the ‘strict elements’ test.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 7 , 476 P.3d 1201 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 31 , 306 P.3d 426 ). {8} However, “[w]hen dealing with statutes that are vague and unspecific or written with many alternatives, we apply a modified version of the Blockburger test.” State v. Arguello, 2024-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 557 P.3d 1018 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2024-NMCERT-009 (S-1-SC-40560); see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (adopting a modified version | 23 | 51 |
Blockburger v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2025See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932); see also Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶ 23 (providing that the reviewing court must “examine the statutes at issue to discern whether the modified or strict-elements Blockburger test applies,” and “should then apply either the modified or the strict-elements test—but not both”). 2025See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932); see also Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶ 23 (providing that the reviewing court must “examine the statutes at issue to discern whether the modified or strict-elements Blockburger test applies,” and “should then apply either the modified or the strict-elements test—but not both”). | 22 | 48 |
State v. Swickgreen2 sentences2024Likewise, because there are innumerable ways in which a person might be “less able to the slightest degree . . . to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety” as a result of drinking alcohol, UJI 14-4501(2), we apply the modified Blockburger test to the offense of DUI, impaired to the slightest degree. 4 See Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 14 (applying modified Blockburger where the “generic terms [of the statute] make it possible for numerous forms of conduct to qualify as the requisite actus reus element of the statute”); see also Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 2 2024Likewise, because there are innumerable ways in which a person might be “less able to the slightest degree . . . to exercise the clear judgment and steady hand necessary to handle a vehicle with safety” as a result of drinking alcohol, UJI 14-4501(2), we apply the modified Blockburger test to the offense of DUI, impaired to the slightest degree. 4 See Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 14 (applying modified Blockburger where the “generic terms [of the statute] make it possible for numerous forms of conduct to qualify as the requisite actus reus element of the statute”); see also Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 2 | 21 | 36 |
Swafford v. Stategreen2 sentences2025To be clear, 19 this is the Blockburger test that was applied to double jeopardy questions prior to 20 our Supreme Court’s adoption, in Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , 112 N.M. 3 , 21 810 P.2d 1223 , of the modified Blockburger test our courts now apply to determine 1 whether punishment for two crimes violates double jeopardy. 2025To be clear, 19 this is the Blockburger test that was applied to double jeopardy questions prior to 20 our Supreme Court’s adoption, in Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , 112 N.M. 3 , 21 810 P.2d 1223 , of the modified Blockburger test our courts now apply to determine 1 whether punishment for two crimes violates double jeopardy. | 19 | 37 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2025This test is “sometimes referred to as the ‘strict elements’ test.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 7 , 476 P.3d 1201 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 31 , 306 P.3d 426 ). {8} However, “[w]hen dealing with statutes that are vague and unspecific or written with many alternatives, we apply a modified version of the Blockburger test.” State v. Arguello, 2024-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 557 P.3d 1018 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2024-NMCERT-009 (S-1-SC-40560); see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (adopting a modified version 2025This test is “sometimes referred to as the ‘strict elements’ test.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 7 , 476 P.3d 1201 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 31 , 306 P.3d 426 ). {8} However, “[w]hen dealing with statutes that are vague and unspecific or written with many alternatives, we apply a modified version of the Blockburger test.” State v. Arguello, 2024-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 557 P.3d 1018 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2024-NMCERT-009 (S-1-SC-40560); see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (adopting a modified version | 14 | 40 |
State v. Silvasgreen2 sentences2026The modified 14 Blockburger test considers not only “whether each statute in the abstract requires 15 proof of a fact that the other does not, but also whether the statute, as applied by the 16 [s]tate in a given case, overlaps with other criminal statutes so that the accused is 17 being punished twice for the same offense.” Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 14 (internal 18 quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 {20} “The modified Blockburger analysis ‘demands that we compare the elements 20 of the offense[s], looking at the [s]tate’s legal theory of how the statutes were 1 violated.’” Begaye, 2023- 2026The modified 14 Blockburger test considers not only “whether each statute in the abstract requires 15 proof of a fact that the other does not, but also whether the statute, as applied by the 16 [s]tate in a given case, overlaps with other criminal statutes so that the accused is 17 being punished twice for the same offense.” Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 14 (internal 18 quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 {20} “The modified Blockburger analysis ‘demands that we compare the elements 20 of the offense[s], looking at the [s]tate’s legal theory of how the statutes were 1 violated.’” Begaye, 2023- | 14 | 20 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2025This test is “sometimes referred to as the ‘strict elements’ test.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 7 , 476 P.3d 1201 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 31 , 306 P.3d 426 ). {8} However, “[w]hen dealing with statutes that are vague and unspecific or written with many alternatives, we apply a modified version of the Blockburger test.” State v. Arguello, 2024-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 557 P.3d 1018 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2024-NMCERT-009 (S-1-SC-40560); see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (adopting a modified version 2025This test is “sometimes referred to as the ‘strict elements’ test.” State v. Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 7 , 476 P.3d 1201 (quoting State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 31 , 306 P.3d 426 ). {8} However, “[w]hen dealing with statutes that are vague and unspecific or written with many alternatives, we apply a modified version of the Blockburger test.” State v. Arguello, 2024-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 557 P.3d 1018 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2024-NMCERT-009 (S-1-SC-40560); see State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N.M. 232 , 258 P.3d 1024 (adopting a modified version | 11 | 19 |
State v. Portergreen2 sentences2026When statutes 6 “provide[] alternative methods by which a defendant can violate the statute,” we 7 apply a modified Blockburger test to compare the statutory language with the state’s 8 theory of a case based on the charging documents, jury instructions, testimony, and 9 arguments made at trial to “establish whether the same evidence supported a 10 defendant’s convictions under both statutes.” Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶¶ 18, 23- 11 24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12 {31} Pursuant to Section 30-9-20(A), voyeurism consists of 13 intentionally using the unaided eye to view or 2026The modified 14 Blockburger test considers not only “whether each statute in the abstract requires 15 proof of a fact that the other does not, but also whether the statute, as applied by the 16 [s]tate in a given case, overlaps with other criminal statutes so that the accused is 17 being punished twice for the same offense.” Silvas, 2015-NMSC-006, ¶ 14 (internal 18 quotation marks and citation omitted). 19 {20} “The modified Blockburger analysis ‘demands that we compare the elements 20 of the offense[s], looking at the [s]tate’s legal theory of how the statutes were 1 violated.’” Begaye, 2023- | 10 | 15 |
State v. Santillanesgreen2 sentences2023See Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 16 ; 14 see also State v. Ibn Omar-Muhammad, 1985-NMSC-006 , ¶ 22, 102 N.M. 274 , 694 15 P.2d 922 (concluding that the Legislature intended to leave prosecutorial discretion 16 intact when the vehicular homicide statute contained no requirement that the 17 defendant “know of any risk involved in [their] actions,” in contrast to depraved 18 mind murder). 19 {11} Recognizing the side-by-side differences between the statutes, Saltwater urges 20 us to apply the Blockburger test as modified by our Supreme Court in State v. 8 1 Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N 2023See Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 16 ; 14 see also State v. Ibn Omar-Muhammad, 1985-NMSC-006 , ¶ 22, 102 N.M. 274 , 694 15 P.2d 922 (concluding that the Legislature intended to leave prosecutorial discretion 16 intact when the vehicular homicide statute contained no requirement that the 17 defendant “know of any risk involved in [their] actions,” in contrast to depraved 18 mind murder). 19 {11} Recognizing the side-by-side differences between the statutes, Saltwater urges 20 us to apply the Blockburger test as modified by our Supreme Court in State v. 8 1 Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N | 8 | 12 |
State v. Francogreen2 sentences2023In State v. Franco, this Court 11 reiterated that Swafford rejected “an evidence-based approach . . . in favor of the 12 Blockburger test[], which is an elements-based approach.” 2005-NMSC-013 , ¶ 17, 13 137 N.M. 447 , 112 P.3d 1104 . 14 {17} Twenty years after Swafford, this Court modified the Blockburger analysis in 15 cases where the statutes at issue are vague and unspecific or are written in the 16 alternative. 2023In State v. Franco, this Court 11 reiterated that Swafford rejected “an evidence-based approach . . . in favor of the 12 Blockburger test[], which is an elements-based approach.” 2005-NMSC-013 , ¶ 17, 13 137 N.M. 447 , 112 P.3d 1104 . 14 {17} Twenty years after Swafford, this Court modified the Blockburger analysis in 15 cases where the statutes at issue are vague and unspecific or are written in the 16 alternative. | 7 | 16 |
State v. Francogreen2 sentences2023In State v. Franco, this Court 11 reiterated that Swafford rejected “an evidence-based approach . . . in favor of the 12 Blockburger test[], which is an elements-based approach.” 2005-NMSC-013 , ¶ 17, 13 137 N.M. 447 , 112 P.3d 1104 . 14 {17} Twenty years after Swafford, this Court modified the Blockburger analysis in 15 cases where the statutes at issue are vague and unspecific or are written in the 16 alternative. 2023In State v. Franco, this Court 11 reiterated that Swafford rejected “an evidence-based approach . . . in favor of the 12 Blockburger test[], which is an elements-based approach.” 2005-NMSC-013 , ¶ 17, 13 137 N.M. 447 , 112 P.3d 1104 . 14 {17} Twenty years after Swafford, this Court modified the Blockburger analysis in 15 cases where the statutes at issue are vague and unspecific or are written in the 16 alternative. | 5 | 12 |
Whalen v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2018Pandelli v. United States, 635 18 F.2d 533 , 535-39 (6th Cir. 1980) (explaining the evolution of the Blockburger test 19 that occurred in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and Illinois v. Vitale, 7 1 447 U.S. 410 (1980)). 2017Pandelli v. United States, 635 16 F.2d 533, 535-39 (6th Cir. 1980) (explaining the evolution of the Blockburger test 17 that occurred in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and Illinois v. Vitale, 18 447 U.S. 410 (1980)). | 5 | 7 |
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2026See Torres, 2018-NMSC-013, ¶ 21 . 9 {19} We first apply the modified Blockburger test because the statutes here are 10 written in the alternative. 2021However, this conclusion is not dispositive of our legislative intent analysis because New Mexico appellate courts have modified the traditional Blockburger test “to be more in line with the subsequent development of United States Supreme Court precedent.” Porter, 2020-NMSC-020, ¶ 18 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see Torres, 2018-NMSC-013, ¶ 25 (“[O]ur law does not permit an application of Blockburger that is so mechanical that it is enough for two statutes to have different elements.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {45} Under our modified Bl | 5 | 6 |
State v. Lunagreen2 sentences2025See State v. Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 457 (concluding that convictions did not survive the modified Blockburger test because “the jury could” have “convict[ed the d]efendant” for one crime “based on nothing more than the same evidence used to convict” the defendant of another crime”). {33} In light of the State’s theory here, the attempted murder conviction is subsumed into the first degree kidnapping, “and the statutes are the same for double jeopardy purposes—punishment cannot be had for both.” Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 30; see also Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 11 (“[If o]ne statute 2025See State v. Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 457 (concluding that convictions did not survive the modified Blockburger test because “the jury could” have “convict[ed the d]efendant” for one crime “based on nothing more than the same evidence used to convict” the defendant of another crime”). {42} In light of the State’s theory here, the attempted murder conviction is subsumed into the first degree kidnapping, “and the statutes are the same for double jeopardy purposes—punishment cannot be had for both.” Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 30; see also Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 11 (“[If o]ne statute | 3 | 8 |
State v. Branchgreen2 sentences2025The Blockburger test requires this court to consider the elements of the charges under review “to determine whether each [charge] requires proof of a fact that the other does not.” State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 24, 417 P.3d 1141 . 2025The Blockburger test requires this court to consider the elements of the charges under review “to determine whether each [charge] requires proof of a fact that the other does not.” State v. Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 24, 417 P.3d 1141 . | 3 | 8 |
State v. Serratogreen2 sentences2025“Under the modified Blockburger analysis, we no longer apply a strict elements test in the abstract; rather, we look to the state’s trial theory to identify the specific criminal cause of action for which the defendant was convicted, filling in the case-specific meaning of generic terms in the statute when necessary.” State v. Serrato, 2021-NMCA-027, ¶ 16 , 493 P.3d 383 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he application of Blockburger should not be so mechanical that it is enough for two statutes to have different elements.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025“Under the modified Blockburger analysis, we no longer apply a strict elements test in the abstract; rather, we look to the state’s trial theory to identify the specific criminal cause of action for which the defendant was convicted, filling in the case-specific meaning of generic terms in the statute when necessary.” State v. Serrato, 2021-NMCA-027, ¶ 16 , 493 P.3d 383 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[T]he application of Blockburger should not be so mechanical that it is enough for two statutes to have different elements.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Ibn Omar-Muhammadgreen2 sentences2023See Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 16 ; 14 see also State v. Ibn Omar-Muhammad, 1985-NMSC-006 , ¶ 22, 102 N.M. 274 , 694 15 P.2d 922 (concluding that the Legislature intended to leave prosecutorial discretion 16 intact when the vehicular homicide statute contained no requirement that the 17 defendant “know of any risk involved in [their] actions,” in contrast to depraved 18 mind murder). 19 {11} Recognizing the side-by-side differences between the statutes, Saltwater urges 20 us to apply the Blockburger test as modified by our Supreme Court in State v. 8 1 Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N 2023See Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, ¶ 16 ; 14 see also State v. Ibn Omar-Muhammad, 1985-NMSC-006 , ¶ 22, 102 N.M. 274 , 694 15 P.2d 922 (concluding that the Legislature intended to leave prosecutorial discretion 16 intact when the vehicular homicide statute contained no requirement that the 17 defendant “know of any risk involved in [their] actions,” in contrast to depraved 18 mind murder). 19 {11} Recognizing the side-by-side differences between the statutes, Saltwater urges 20 us to apply the Blockburger test as modified by our Supreme Court in State v. 8 1 Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 150 N | 3 | 4 |
State v. Almeidagreen2 sentences2019See Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 22 (recognizing under the Blockburger test, if each statute requires an element of proof not required by the other, “we presume that the Legislature intended to punish the offense separately”). {31} But under the facts of this case, and our opinion in State v. Almeida, 2008- NMCA-068, ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 235 , 185 P.3d 1085 , we recognize that the presumption that the Legislature intended separate punishments is not conclusive and it may be overcome by “other indicia of legislative intent, including the language, history, and subject of the statutes, the social evil 2019See Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 22 (recognizing under the Blockburger test, if each statute requires an element of proof not required by the other, “we presume that the Legislature intended to punish the offense separately”). {31} But under the facts of this case, and our opinion in State v. Almeida, 2008- NMCA-068, ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 235 , 185 P.3d 1085 , we recognize that the presumption that the Legislature intended separate punishments is not conclusive and it may be overcome by “other indicia of legislative intent, including the language, history, and subject of the statutes, the social evil | 3 | 4 |
| State v. Begayegreen | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Meadorsgreen | 3 | 3 |
State v. Ramirezgreen2 sentences2020Gutierrez, 2012-NMCA-095, ¶ 14 (explaining that the modified Blockburger approach “applies when one of the statutes at issue is written with many alternatives, or is vague or unspecific”). {29} Again, under modified the Blockburger analysis, we look to the State’s trial theory “to identify the specific criminal cause of action for which the defendant was convicted, filling in the case-specific meaning of generic terms in the statute when necessary.” Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 25. “[W]e look to the charging documents and jury instructions to identify the specific criminal causes of action for wh 2020Gutierrez, 2012-NMCA-095, ¶ 14 (explaining that the modified Blockburger approach “applies when one of the statutes at issue is written with many alternatives, or is vague or unspecific”). {29} Again, under modified the Blockburger analysis, we look to the State’s trial theory “to identify the specific criminal cause of action for which the defendant was convicted, filling in the case-specific meaning of generic terms in the statute when necessary.” Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 25. “[W]e look to the charging documents and jury instructions to identify the specific criminal causes of action for wh | 2 | 6 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2022See § 30-16-4(A)-(C); State v. Gutierrez, 2012-NMCA-095, ¶ 14 , 286 P.3d 608 (stating that we apply the modified Blockburger test when one of the statutes are written with various alternatives); see also State v. Sena, 2018-NMCA-037 , ¶¶ 42-44, 419 P.3d 1240 (noting that aggravated burglary has numerous ways in which a conviction may occur so this Court must analyze it through the modified Blockburger test), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, and remanded, 2020-NMSC-011, ¶ 56 . 2020Gutierrez, 2012-NMCA-095, ¶ 14 (explaining that the modified Blockburger approach “applies when one of the statutes at issue is written with many alternatives, or is vague or unspecific”). {29} Again, under modified the Blockburger analysis, we look to the State’s trial theory “to identify the specific criminal cause of action for which the defendant was convicted, filling in the case-specific meaning of generic terms in the statute when necessary.” Branch, 2018-NMCA-031 , ¶ 25. “[W]e look to the charging documents and jury instructions to identify the specific criminal causes of action for wh | 2 | 5 |
Illinois v. Vitalegreen2 sentences2018Pandelli v. United States, 635 18 F.2d 533 , 535-39 (6th Cir. 1980) (explaining the evolution of the Blockburger test 19 that occurred in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and Illinois v. Vitale, 7 1 447 U.S. 410 (1980)). 2017Pandelli v. United States, 635 16 F.2d 533, 535-39 (6th Cir. 1980) (explaining the evolution of the Blockburger test 17 that occurred in Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S. 684 (1980), and Illinois v. Vitale, 18 447 U.S. 410 (1980)). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Armijogreen2 sentences2013See Franco, 2005-NMSC-013, ¶ 12 (applying the Blockburger test to 14 1 determine legislative intent); see also State v. Armijo, 2005-NMCA-010, ¶ 22 , 136 2 N.M. 723 , 104 P.3d 1114 (“When applying the Blockburger test to compound 3 offenses or offenses that may be charged in alternate ways, we look only to the 4 elements of the statutes as charged to the jury and disregard the inapplicable statutory 5 elements.” (emphasis added)). 6 {20} If the Blockburger test “establishes that one statute is subsumed within the 7 other, the inquiry is over and the statutes are the same for double jeopardy pu 2013See Franco, 2005-NMSC-013, ¶ 12 (applying the Blockburger test to 14 1 determine legislative intent); see also State v. Armijo, 2005-NMCA-010, ¶ 22 , 136 2 N.M. 723 , 104 P.3d 1114 (“When applying the Blockburger test to compound 3 offenses or offenses that may be charged in alternate ways, we look only to the 4 elements of the statutes as charged to the jury and disregard the inapplicable statutory 5 elements.” (emphasis added)). 6 {20} If the Blockburger test “establishes that one statute is subsumed within the 7 other, the inquiry is over and the statutes are the same for double jeopardy pu | 2 | 4 |
Raymond Pandelli v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011We find the rationale discussed in Pandelli to be directly applicable to Child's claim in this case and, for the reasons that follow, we today adopt a modified version of the Blockburger test for double jeopardy claims involving statutes that are "vague and unspecific," in addition to those that are "written with many alternatives." Pandelli, 635 F.2d at 538 . 2011We find the rationale discussed in Pandelli to be directly applicable to Child's claim in this case and, for the reasons that follow, we today adopt a modified version of the Blockburger test for double jeopardy claims involving statutes that are "vague and unspecific," in addition to those that are "written with many alternatives." Pandelli, 635 F.2d at 538 . | 2 | 4 |
| State v. Rodriguezgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Simmonsgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Lozagreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Senagreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Almeidagreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Walter Espositogreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Suazogreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Fostergreen | 2 | 2 |
| United States v. Cleta Barringtongreen | 2 | 2 |
| Albernaz v. United Statesgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Kennedygreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Whitakergreen | 2 | 2 |
State v. Leegreen2 sentences2018State 11 v. Lee, 2009-NMCA-075, ¶ 9 , 146 N.M. 605 , 213 P.3d 509 (“In applying the 12 Blockburger test, this Court compares the elements of each crime with the elements 13 of the other.”). 2018State 11 v. Lee, 2009-NMCA-075, ¶ 9 , 146 N.M. 605 , 213 P.3d 509 (“In applying the 12 Blockburger test, this Court compares the elements of each crime with the elements 13 of the other.”). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Armendarizgreen2 sentences2019See Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 22 (recognizing under the Blockburger test, if each statute requires an element of proof not required by the other, “we presume that the Legislature intended to punish the offense separately”). {31} But under the facts of this case, and our opinion in State v. Almeida, 2008- NMCA-068, ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 235 , 185 P.3d 1085 , we recognize that the presumption that the Legislature intended separate punishments is not conclusive and it may be overcome by “other indicia of legislative intent, including the language, history, and subject of the statutes, the social evil 2019See Armendariz, 2006-NMSC-036, ¶ 22 (recognizing under the Blockburger test, if each statute requires an element of proof not required by the other, “we presume that the Legislature intended to punish the offense separately”). {31} But under the facts of this case, and our opinion in State v. Almeida, 2008- NMCA-068, ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 235 , 185 P.3d 1085 , we recognize that the presumption that the Legislature intended separate punishments is not conclusive and it may be overcome by “other indicia of legislative intent, including the language, history, and subject of the statutes, the social evil | 1 | 7 |
State v. Carrascogreen2 sentences2026When statutes 6 “provide[] alternative methods by which a defendant can violate the statute,” we 7 apply a modified Blockburger test to compare the statutory language with the state’s 8 theory of a case based on the charging documents, jury instructions, testimony, and 9 arguments made at trial to “establish whether the same evidence supported a 10 defendant’s convictions under both statutes.” Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶¶ 18, 23- 11 24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12 {31} Pursuant to Section 30-9-20(A), voyeurism consists of 13 intentionally using the unaided eye to view or 2026When statutes 6 “provide[] alternative methods by which a defendant can violate the statute,” we 7 apply a modified Blockburger test to compare the statutory language with the state’s 8 theory of a case based on the charging documents, jury instructions, testimony, and 9 arguments made at trial to “establish whether the same evidence supported a 10 defendant’s convictions under both statutes.” Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶¶ 18, 23- 11 24 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 12 {31} Pursuant to Section 30-9-20(A), voyeurism consists of 13 intentionally using the unaided eye to view or | 1 | 4 |
| 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. Caldwell
green
2 sentences2019“When applying the Blockburger test to offenses that may be charged in alternate ways, we look only to the elements of the statute as charged to the jury and disregard the inapplicable statutory elements.” State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 792 , 182 P.3d 775 (omission, alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {21} With respect to the first part of the Swafford test, we fail to see “sufficient indicia of distinctness” between the conduct underlying Defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault and aggravated battery. 2019“When applying the Blockburger test to offenses that may be charged in alternate ways, we look only to the elements of the statute as charged to the jury and disregard the inapplicable statutory elements.” State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 792 , 182 P.3d 775 (omission, alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {21} With respect to the first part of the Swafford test, we fail to see “sufficient indicia of distinctness” between the conduct underlying Defendant’s convictions for aggravated assault and aggravated battery. | 5 | 2009–2019 |
Missouri v. Hunter
green
2 sentences2009Therefore, ... simple possession is subsumed within possession with intent to distribute.” (citations omitted)). {16} The Blockburger test is nothing more than “a rule of statutory construction[,]” Hunter, 459 U.S. at 366 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , embodying the commonsense understanding that “[i]f proving the violation of one statute always proves a violation of another statute, ... it would appear that the legislature was creating alternative bases for prosecution but only a single offense.” George C. 2009Therefore, ... simple possession is subsumed within possession with intent to distribute.” (citations omitted)). {16} The Blockburger test is nothing more than “a rule of statutory construction[,]” Hunter, 459 U.S. at 366 , 103 S.Ct. 673 , embodying the commonsense understanding that “[i]f proving the violation of one statute always proves a violation of another statute, ... it would appear that the legislature was creating alternative bases for prosecution but only a single offense.” George C. | 4 | 1991–2009 |
Garrett v. United States
green
2 sentences2024Recognizing that the Blockburger test “was developed in the context of multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution, and is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear,” 2018-NMSC-034, ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), our Supreme Court relied on the plain intent of the Legislature to punish racketeering, “in addition to, not in lieu of, any predicate offenses.” Id. ¶ 9 (citing Garrett, 471 U.S. at 779-86 ). 2024Recognizing that the Blockburger test “was developed in the context of multiple punishments imposed in a single prosecution, and is not controlling when the legislative intent is clear,” 2018-NMSC-034, ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), our Supreme Court relied on the plain intent of the Legislature to punish racketeering, “in addition to, not in lieu of, any predicate offenses.” Id. ¶ 9 (citing Garrett, 471 U.S. at 779-86 ). | 3 | 2018–2024 |
| State v. Chavez green | 3 | 2016–2023 |
| State v. Ford green | 3 | 2019–2020 |
| State v. McGruder green | 3 | 2010–2016 |
| State v. Franco green | 3 | 2005–2007 |
| State v. Cleve green | 2 | 2001–2025 |
| State v. Loza green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Frazier green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Holt green | 2 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Charlton green | 2 | 1993–2010 |
| State v. Medina green | 2 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Nieto neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Conley v. Conley green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Consaul green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Mendoza v. TAMAYA ENTERPRISES, INC. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Mora green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Marquez green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| People v. Martin green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Branch green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.