132 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1925–2026 51 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. Lucerogreen2 sentences2026See State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶¶ 12-13, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 (“Even if the defendant did not raise proper objections at trial, [the defendant] may be entitled to relief if the errors . . . constituted plain error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Rule 12-321(B)(2)(b) (permitting review of plain error on appeal notwithstanding failure to preserve the issue); Rule 11-103(A)(1)(b), (E) NMRA (requiring a party to state specific grounds for error in admitting evidence and noting that the “court may take notice of a plain error” even if not preserved). 2026See State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶¶ 12-13, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 (“Even if the defendant did not raise proper objections at trial, [the defendant] may be entitled to relief if the errors . . . constituted plain error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Rule 12-321(B)(2)(b) (permitting review of plain error on appeal notwithstanding failure to preserve the issue); Rule 11-103(A)(1)(b), (E) NMRA (requiring a party to state specific grounds for error in admitting evidence and noting that the “court may take notice of a plain error” even if not preserved). | 15 | 34 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2026Plain error requires that the admission of evidence “constituted an injustice that created grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 46 , 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026Plain error requires that the admission of evidence “constituted an injustice that created grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 46, 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 12 | 27 |
State v. Paizgreen2 sentences2025“When a plain error affects substantial rights . . . an appellate court should exercise its discretion and reverse if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paiz, 1999- NMCA-104, ¶ 28, 127 N.M. 776 , 987 P.2d 1163 (alteration, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025“When a plain error affects substantial rights . . . an appellate court should exercise its discretion and reverse if the error seriously affects the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” State v. Paiz, 1999- NMCA-104, ¶ 28, 127 N.M. 776 , 987 P.2d 1163 (alteration, internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 9 | 17 |
State v. Montoyagreen2 sentences2026Plain error requires that the admission of evidence “constituted an injustice that created grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 46 , 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026Plain error requires that the admission of evidence “constituted an injustice that created grave doubts concerning the validity of the verdict.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 46, 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 4 | 25 |
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2023We decline, however, as the plain error rule only applies to evidentiary matters, and “only if we have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Torres, 2005- NMCA-070, ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 19 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (“Plain error applies only to errors in evidentiary matters.). 2023We decline, however, as the plain error rule only applies to evidentiary matters, and “only if we have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Torres, 2005- NMCA-070, ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 19 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (“Plain error applies only to errors in evidentiary matters.). | 4 | 13 |
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2019See Dylan J., 2009- NMCA-027, ¶ 15(“examin[ing] the alleged [plain] errors in the context of the testimony as a whole.” (internal quotations and citation omitted)); Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 9 (stating that the plain error rule applies only in evidentiary matters and “only if we have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2016But Lucero states that the standard of review for plain error is simply whether the error “affect[s] substantial rights[,]” a standard which the court itself characterized as “less stringent” than the standard of review for constitutional fundamental error. 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 9 , 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (“The plain error doctrine is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application.”). | 4 | 10 |
State v. Dylan J.green2 sentences2026“Plain error is an exception to the general rule that parties must raise timely objection to improprieties at trial, and therefore it is to be used sparingly.” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 15 , 145 N.M. 719 , 204 P.3d 44 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2026“Plain error is an exception to the general rule that parties must raise timely objection to improprieties at trial, and therefore it is to be used sparingly.” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 15 , 145 N.M. 719 , 204 P.3d 44 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 14 |
State v. Marquezgreen2 sentences1999When a plain error affects substantial rights, the United States Supreme Court has indicated that an appellate court should exercise its discretion and reverse “if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see also Marquez, 87 N.M. at 61 , 529 P.2d at 287 . {29} We reverse in this ease because the metropolitan court judge’s errors seriously affected the fairness of the trial. 1999When a plain error affects substantial rights, the United States Supreme Court has indicated that an appellate court should exercise its discretion and reverse “if the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’ ” Olano, 507 U.S. at 736 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160 , 56 S.Ct. 391 , 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)); see also Marquez, 87 N.M. at 61 , 529 P.2d at 287 . {29} We reverse in this ease because the metropolitan court judge’s errors seriously affected the fairness of the trial. | 3 | 4 |
State v. Bregargreen2 sentences2025See Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 28 (stating that preserved evidentiary errors are reviewed for abuse of discretion); State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 46 , 345 P.3d 1056 (stating that unpreserved evidentiary errors are reviewed for plain error). 2020See State v. Bregar, 2017-NMCA-028, ¶ 28 , 390 P.3d 212 (“If an appellant fails to object to the admission of evidence below, on appeal we will only review for plain error[.]”); see also State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 13, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 (“Plain error, however, applies only to evidentiary matters.”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2014See State v. Young, 1985-NMCA-079 , ¶ 30, 103 N.M. 313 , 706 P.2d 855 .(“[I]t is the duty of counsel to alert the court to the specific basis for the objection, so that the court may rule intelligently.”). {29} The plain error rule applies only if an alleged error affected the substantial rights of the accused. 2014See State v. Young, 1985-NMCA-079 , ¶ 30, 103 N.M. 313 , 706 P.2d 855 .(“[I]t is the duty of counsel to alert the court to the specific basis for the objection, so that the court may rule intelligently.”). {29} The plain error rule applies only if an alleged error affected the substantial rights of the accused. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Contrerasgreen2 sentences2018Appellate courts do not "use the plain error rule to review the validity of the admission of [erroneously admitted] testimony." State v. Contreras , 1995-NMSC-056 , ¶ 24, 120 N.M. 486 , 903 P.2d 228 . 2018Appellate courts do not "use the plain error rule to review the validity of the admission of [erroneously admitted] testimony." State v. Contreras , 1995-NMSC-056 , ¶ 24, 120 N.M. 486 , 903 P.2d 228 . | 2 | 8 |
State v. Mullergreen2 sentences2025“Because [the plain error rule] is an exception to the preservation requirement, we apply the rule sparingly and only when we have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {16} Defendant argues that “[i]t is unclear what relevance [his drug use] had to the State’s case,” noting that drug use was not an element of either crime charged against Defendant. 2024Because the plain error rule “is an exception to the preservation requirement, we apply the rule sparingly and only when we have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {16} Defendant argues that Officer Ahlgrim’s testimony was expert opinion testimony and that the admission of such testimony without Officer Ahlgrim being qualified as an expert amounts to plain error. [BIC 14-26] The State acknowledges t | 2 | 6 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2024“Under the plain error rule, there must be (1) error, that is (2) plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Hill, 2008-NMCA-117, ¶ 21 , 144 N.M. 775 , 192 P.3d 770 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2024“Under the plain error rule, there must be (1) error, that is (2) plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Hill, 2008-NMCA-117, ¶ 21 , 144 N.M. 775 , 192 P.3d 770 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Floresgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, ¶ 17, 340 P.3d 622 (stating “it is the responsibility of the parties to set forth their developed arguments, it is not the [C]ourt’s responsibility to presume what they may have intended”). 2023See id. ¶¶ 43-45 (rejecting the defendant’s plain-error claim on same ground); see also State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, ¶ 17 , 340 P.3d 622 (“This Court will not rule on an inadequately- briefed issue where doing so would require this Court to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties’ work for them.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
| City of Albuquerque v. PCA-Albuquerque 19green | 2 | 2 |
| Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsorgreen | 2 | 2 |
| cluster 768824green | 2 | 2 |
| Brooks v. Norwest Corp.green | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gwynnegreen2 sentences2025Because defense counsel did not object, our review is for plain error. {15} “Under the plain error rule, there must be (1) error, that is (2) plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Gwynne, 2018-NMCA-033 , ¶ 27, 417 P.3d 1157 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025“Under the plain error rule, there must be (1) error, that is (2) plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” State v. Gwynne, 2018-NMCA-033 , ¶ 27, 417 P.3d 1157 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 12 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2025“The plain error rule is to be used sparingly as an exception to a preservation rule designed to encourage efficiency and fairness.” State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 10, 450 P.3d 418 . 2025Plain error applies to “cases raising evidentiary matters in which the asserted error affected substantial rights.” State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 10, 450 P.3d 418 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 8 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 19 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (“Plain error applies only to errors in evidentiary matters.”). 2025See State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 19 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (“Plain error applies only to errors in evidentiary matters.”). | 1 | 7 |
State v. Albericogreen2 sentences2026To determine if there has been plain error, we review “the alleged errors in the context of the testimony as a whole.” Gwynne, 2018-NMCA-033 , ¶ 27. {5} Defendant contends the SANE’s testimony effectively identified Defendant, improperly vouched for Victim’s credibility, and invaded the province of the jury as to the ultimate issue in the case. [BIC 18-29] Relevant to these claims, the SANE did not in fact name Defendant as the alleged perpetrator during her trial testimony, but referred instead to the perpetrator only as “he.” [11-15-22 CD 3:30:00-30] At trial, the SANE briefly used her notes 2023The identified testimony, Defendant maintains, “indirectly commented on the reliability of [Victim]’s statements and identified [Defendant] as [Victim]’s abuser based solely on [Victim]’s disclosures.” It is well established that “[i]ncidental verification of [a] victim’s story or indirect bolstering of [a victim’s] credibility . . . is not by itself improper [because a]ll testimony in the prosecution’s case will tend to corroborate and bolster the victim’s story to some extent.” State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047 , ¶ 89, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Albericogreen2 sentences2026To determine if there has been plain error, we review “the alleged errors in the context of the testimony as a whole.” Gwynne, 2018-NMCA-033 , ¶ 27. {5} Defendant contends the SANE’s testimony effectively identified Defendant, improperly vouched for Victim’s credibility, and invaded the province of the jury as to the ultimate issue in the case. [BIC 18-29] Relevant to these claims, the SANE did not in fact name Defendant as the alleged perpetrator during her trial testimony, but referred instead to the perpetrator only as “he.” [11-15-22 CD 3:30:00-30] At trial, the SANE briefly used her notes 2023The identified testimony, Defendant maintains, “indirectly commented on the reliability of [Victim]’s statements and identified [Defendant] as [Victim]’s abuser based solely on [Victim]’s disclosures.” It is well established that “[i]ncidental verification of [a] victim’s story or indirect bolstering of [a victim’s] credibility . . . is not by itself improper [because a]ll testimony in the prosecution’s case will tend to corroborate and bolster the victim’s story to some extent.” State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047 , ¶ 89, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 . | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2006An error is fundamental if there is a "reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury's deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them." Clark, 108 N.M. at 303 , 772 P.2d at 337 ; cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (discussing federal review under the plain error standard). 2006An error is fundamental if there is a "reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury's deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them." Clark, 108 N.M. at 303 , 772 P.2d at 337 ; cf. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-37 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (discussing federal review under the plain error standard). | 1 | 3 |
United States v. Edward Lewis Robinson, and Roger Lynn Lawheadgreen2 sentences1989"It is settled law that the plain error rule should be applied with caution, and invoked only to avoid a miscarriage of justice." United States v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir.1969). 1989“It is settled law that the plain error rule should be applied with caution, and invoked only to avoid a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Robinson, 419 F.2d 1109 (8th Cir.1969). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Trujillogreen2 sentences2025See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 20 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 . 1 {26} The doctrine of plain error, arising from our Rules of Evidence, applies 2 specifically to evidentiary matters and permits a court to “take notice of a plain error 3 affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.” 4 Rule 11-103(E) NMRA. 2025See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 20 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 . 1 {26} The doctrine of plain error, arising from our Rules of Evidence, applies 2 specifically to evidentiary matters and permits a court to “take notice of a plain error 3 affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.” 4 Rule 11-103(E) NMRA. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2013See 19 Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 (noting that “[o]ut of the facts in each case will arise 9 1 the law” in applying the fundamental error doctrine (internal quotation marks and 2 citation omitted)). 3 We observe that the doctrine of plain error, arising from our rules of evidence, 4 applies specifically to evidentiary matters and permits a court to “take notice of a plain 5 error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly 6 preserved.” Rule 11-103(E); see also State v. Lucero, 116 N.M. 450, 453-54 , 863 7 P.2d 1071 , 1074-75 (1993). 2013See 19 Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 (noting that “[o]ut of the facts in each case will arise 9 1 the law” in applying the fundamental error doctrine (internal quotation marks and 2 citation omitted)). 3 We observe that the doctrine of plain error, arising from our rules of evidence, 4 applies specifically to evidentiary matters and permits a court to “take notice of a plain 5 error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly 6 preserved.” Rule 11-103(E); see also State v. Lucero, 116 N.M. 450, 453-54 , 863 7 P.2d 1071 , 1074-75 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Lopezgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Abrilgreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Oroscogreen | 1 | 2 |
| United States v. Atkinsongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Sweatgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ortegagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Verdugogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Verdugogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Castillogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vanderlugt v. Vanderlugtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Summerallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jacksongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Campbellgreen | 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. Barraza
green
2 sentences2020See Rule 11-103(E) (“A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.”); Rule 12-321(B)(2)(b), (c) (permitting the appellate court in its discretion to review issues involving plain or fundamental error); State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 12, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 (citing State v. Barraza, 1990-NMCA-026 , ¶ 17, 110 N.M. 45 , 791 P.2d 799 ). 2020See Rule 11-103(E) (“A court may take notice of a plain error affecting a substantial right, even if the claim of error was not properly preserved.”); Rule 12-321(B)(2)(b), (c) (permitting the appellate court in its discretion to review issues involving plain or fundamental error); State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 12, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 (citing State v. Barraza, 1990-NMCA-026 , ¶ 17, 110 N.M. 45 , 791 P.2d 799 ). | 5 | 2012–2025 |
United States v. Clifford Frank Campbell and John Clifton Free
green
2 sentences1989Courts apply the rule to reverse convictions only when the evidentiary error is very damaging: "Plain error" has been characterized in various ways such as "grave errors which seriously affect substantial rights of the accused," "errors that result in a clear miscarriage of justice," errors that "are obvious or * * * otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Campbell, 419 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir.1969). 1989Courts apply the rule to reverse convictions only when the evidentiary error is very damaging: “Plain error” has been characterized in various ways such as “grave errors which seriously affect substantial rights of the accused,” “errors that result, in a clear miscarriage of justice,” errors that “are obvious or * * * otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Campbell, 419 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir.1969). | 3 | 1974–1989 |
Torres v. State
green
2 sentences2024Cf. State v. McDonald, 2004-NMSC-033, ¶ 22 , 136 N.M. 417 , 99 P.3d 667 (“It is profoundly a matter for the [L]egislature to determine whether the agreement to commit a violent crime is to be treated the same as the underlying crime itself.”); Torres v. State, 1995-NMSC-025 , ¶ 10, 119 N.M. 609 , 894 P.2d 386 (“[I]t is the particular domain of the [L]egislature, as the voice of the people, to make public policy.”). validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (internal quotation 2024Cf. State v. McDonald, 2004-NMSC-033, ¶ 22 , 136 N.M. 417 , 99 P.3d 667 (“It is profoundly a matter for the [L]egislature to determine whether the agreement to commit a violent crime is to be treated the same as the underlying crime itself.”); Torres v. State, 1995-NMSC-025 , ¶ 10, 119 N.M. 609 , 894 P.2d 386 (“[I]t is the particular domain of the [L]egislature, as the voice of the people, to make public policy.”). validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (internal quotation | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. McDonald
green
2 sentences2024Cf. State v. McDonald, 2004-NMSC-033, ¶ 22 , 136 N.M. 417 , 99 P.3d 667 (“It is profoundly a matter for the [L]egislature to determine whether the agreement to commit a violent crime is to be treated the same as the underlying crime itself.”); Torres v. State, 1995-NMSC-025 , ¶ 10, 119 N.M. 609 , 894 P.2d 386 (“[I]t is the particular domain of the [L]egislature, as the voice of the people, to make public policy.”). validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (internal quotation 2024Cf. State v. McDonald, 2004-NMSC-033, ¶ 22 , 136 N.M. 417 , 99 P.3d 667 (“It is profoundly a matter for the [L]egislature to determine whether the agreement to commit a violent crime is to be treated the same as the underlying crime itself.”); Torres v. State, 1995-NMSC-025 , ¶ 10, 119 N.M. 609 , 894 P.2d 386 (“[I]t is the particular domain of the [L]egislature, as the voice of the people, to make public policy.”). validity of the verdict, due to an error that infects the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceeding.” State v. Muller, 2022-NMCA-024 , ¶ 43, 508 P.3d 960 (internal quotation | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Duran
green
2 sentences2024State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 9 , 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 . {4} In the present case, Defendant argues that Lily Monclova, the investigating detective, and Danessa Starkey, the forensic interviewer, were improperly allowed to give expert testimony as lay witnesses. [BIC 9] Detective Monclova testified about her fifteen years with the Farmington Police Department and her duties as part of child sexual assault investigations. [BIC 4; AB 5] She testified that she sets up safe house interviews, observes the interviews, and gathers evidence; and that she goes into interviews with an open min 2019Paiz, 1999-NMCA-104, ¶ 28 . {14} Generally, violations of the rules of evidence are considered to be non- constitutional error, which is harmless “when there is no reasonable probability the error affected the verdict.” State v. Duran, 2015-NMCA-015, ¶ 19 , 343 P.3d 207 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 2 | 2019–2024 |
State v. Tollardo
green
2 sentences2022Cf. State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶¶ 43- 44, 275 P.3d 110 (stressing the case-specific nature of harmless error review and identifying several factors for consideration). {45} Defendant neither examines the alleged errors in the context of the trial testimony as a whole nor cogently explains to us why he believes he was prejudiced to the extent that we should have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict. 2022Cf. State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶¶ 43- 44, 275 P.3d 110 (stressing the case-specific nature of harmless error review and identifying several factors for consideration). {45} Defendant neither examines the alleged errors in the context of the trial testimony as a whole nor cogently explains to us why he believes he was prejudiced to the extent that we should have grave doubts about the validity of the verdict. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Miera green | 2 | 2019–2022 |
State v. Dartez
green
2 sentences2022Plain error review applies “to errors that affect substantial rights of the accused and only applies to evidentiary matters.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA- 009, ¶ 21, 124 N.M 455, 952 P.2d 450 . 2022Plain error review applies “to errors that affect substantial rights of the accused and only applies to evidentiary matters.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 21 , 124 N.M 455, 952 P.2d 450 . | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Rackley green | 2 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Sanchez green | 2 | 2007–2007 |
| People v. Thompson green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Chavez green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| State v. Sosa green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Martinez green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Campos green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Groves green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Aragon green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Pacheco green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Jesenya O. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Torrez green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Torres green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Walters green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Pennington green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Salas green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Ochoa green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Roybal green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.