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.
19 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2024 8 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. Campbellgreen2 sentences2024See March v. State, 1987-NMSC-020 , ¶ 8, 105 N.M. 453 , 734 P.2d 231 (“The due process right carries with it the right to a reasonable amount of time to prepare a defense.”); State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 14 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 (“A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. 2024See March v. State, 1987-NMSC-020 , ¶ 8, 105 N.M. 453 , 734 P.2d 231 (“The due process right carries with it the right to a reasonable amount of time to prepare a defense.”); State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 14 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 (“A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. | 2 | 5 |
Miller v. Tafoyagreen1 sentence2024This change is reflected in our Rules of Criminal Procedure, making habeas “the proper avenue to challenge the unconstitutional deprivation of good-time credits, even if it would not result in an immediate release.” Perry v. 6 1 “Claims involving the denial of procedural due process are legal questions that we 2 review de novo.” Miller, 2003-NMSC-025, ¶ 9 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
March v. Stategreen2 sentences2024See March v. State, 1987-NMSC-020 , ¶ 8, 105 N.M. 453 , 734 P.2d 231 (“The due process right carries with it the right to a reasonable amount of time to prepare a defense.”); State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 14 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 (“A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. 2024See March v. State, 1987-NMSC-020 , ¶ 8, 105 N.M. 453 , 734 P.2d 231 (“The due process right carries with it the right to a reasonable amount of time to prepare a defense.”); State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 14 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 (“A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. | 1 | 1 |
Olim v. Wakinekonagreen1 sentence2024Generally speaking, the “‘[s]tate creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion.’” Brooks v. Shanks, 1994-NMSC-113 , ¶ 10, 118 N.M. 716 , 885 P.2d 637 (quoting Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Moorered2 sentences2023See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 . {3} Defendant explains that defense counsel tried to cross-examine an officer “about common fears of police by Black men based on current events,” and the trial court prohibited that questioning as irrelevant and speculative. [MIO 3] According to Defendant, the trial court’s ruling foreclosed an avenue of defense. [MIO 7] “We review the exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. 2023See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 . {3} Defendant explains that defense counsel tried to cross-examine an officer “about common fears of police by Black men based on current events,” and the trial court prohibited that questioning as irrelevant and speculative. [MIO 3] According to Defendant, the trial court’s ruling foreclosed an avenue of defense. [MIO 7] “We review the exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salgadogreen2 sentences2023See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 . {3} Defendant explains that defense counsel tried to cross-examine an officer “about common fears of police by Black men based on current events,” and the trial court prohibited that questioning as irrelevant and speculative. [MIO 3] According to Defendant, the trial court’s ruling foreclosed an avenue of defense. [MIO 7] “We review the exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. 2023See State v. Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119 , 782 P.2d 91 , superseded by rule on other grounds as recognized in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA- 044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537 , 817 P.2d 730 . {3} Defendant explains that defense counsel tried to cross-examine an officer “about common fears of police by Black men based on current events,” and the trial court prohibited that questioning as irrelevant and speculative. [MIO 3] According to Defendant, the trial court’s ruling foreclosed an avenue of defense. [MIO 7] “We review the exclusion of evidence for abuse of discretion. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2023See Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶ 12 (concluding that the defendant established prejudice where he “made a sufficient proffer that the testimony would have been both material and favorable to his defense”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salazargreen1 sentence2021See Salazar, 2007-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 16, 28 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Salazargreen2 sentences2019See Salazar, 2006-NMCA-066, ¶¶ 1-3, 27 (holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from being denied a continuance to obtain an evaluation because the prejudice was speculative). {14} Given that Kicklighter acknowledged the avenue of defense before Martinez testified, as well as the possibility that Martinez’s testimony may implicate Defendant on the possession charge, her decision to forego questioning Martinez about access to and control of the vehicle may well have been trial strategy and not an omission. 2019See Salazar, 2006-NMCA-066, ¶¶ 1-3, 27 (holding that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from being denied a continuance to obtain an evaluation because the prejudice was speculative). {14} Given that Kicklighter acknowledged the avenue of defense before Martinez testified, as well as the possibility that Martinez’s testimony may implicate Defendant on the possession charge, her decision to forego questioning Martinez about access to and control of the vehicle may well have been trial strategy and not an omission. | 1 | 1 |
Lytle v. Jordangreen2 sentences2019See Lytle v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-016, ¶ 47 , 130 N.M. 198 , 22 P.3d 666 (“The decision whether to call a witness is a matter of trial tactics and strategy within the control of trial counsel.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2019See Lytle v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-016, ¶ 47 , 130 N.M. 198 , 22 P.3d 666 (“The decision whether to call a witness is a matter of trial tactics and strategy within the control of trial counsel.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Todiscogreen2 sentences2010See State v. 3 Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 (concluding that a claim 4 of prejudice based on insufficient evidence did not show actual and substantial 5 prejudice and was, therefore, speculative). 6 Lastly, Child does not further address his argument raised in the docketing 7 statement that the State violated Rule 10-231(A)(5) by failing to list the address of 8 Lopez. [DS 5] See State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421, 423 , 759 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ct. 9 App. 1988 ) (providing that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must 10 come forward and specifically poin 2010See State v. 3 Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 (concluding that a claim 4 of prejudice based on insufficient evidence did not show actual and substantial 5 prejudice and was, therefore, speculative). 6 Lastly, Child does not further address his argument raised in the docketing 7 statement that the State violated Rule 10-231(A)(5) by failing to list the address of 8 Lopez. [DS 5] See State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421, 423 , 759 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ct. 9 App. 1988 ) (providing that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must 10 come forward and specifically poin | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mondragonred2 sentences2010See State v. 3 Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 (concluding that a claim 4 of prejudice based on insufficient evidence did not show actual and substantial 5 prejudice and was, therefore, speculative). 6 Lastly, Child does not further address his argument raised in the docketing 7 statement that the State violated Rule 10-231(A)(5) by failing to list the address of 8 Lopez. [DS 5] See State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421, 423 , 759 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ct. 9 App. 1988 ) (providing that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must 10 come forward and specifically poin 2010See State v. 3 Todisco, 2000-NMCA-064 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 310 , 6 P.3d 1032 (concluding that a claim 4 of prejudice based on insufficient evidence did not show actual and substantial 5 prejudice and was, therefore, speculative). 6 Lastly, Child does not further address his argument raised in the docketing 7 statement that the State violated Rule 10-231(A)(5) by failing to list the address of 8 Lopez. [DS 5] See State v. Mondragon, 107 N.M. 421, 423 , 759 P.2d 1003, 1005 (Ct. 9 App. 1988 ) (providing that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must 10 come forward and specifically poin | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5 , 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972) (stating that an error was not reversible because the defendant did not show prejudice). 2007See State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5 , 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972) (stating that an error was not reversible because the defendant did not show prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2007No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.” McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651, 653 , 763 P.2d 360, 362 (1988); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). {14} A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. 2007No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.” McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651, 653 , 763 P.2d 360, 362 (1988); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). {14} A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. | 1 | 1 |
McCarty v. Stategreen2 sentences2007No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.” McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651, 653 , 763 P.2d 360, 362 (1988); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). {14} A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. 2007No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.” McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651, 653 , 763 P.2d 360, 362 (1988); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). {14} A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Brooks v. Shanks, 118 N.M. 716 , 885 P.2d 637 (1994); see also Martinez v. State, 110 N.M. 357 , 796 P.2d 250 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
Martinez v. Stategreen1 sentence2002Brooks v. Shanks, 118 N.M. 716 , 885 P.2d 637 (1994); see also Martinez v. State, 110 N.M. 357 , 796 P.2d 250 (Ct.App.1990). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert Cameron Taylorgreen1 sentence1989See United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1979), appeal after remand, 631 F.2d 419 (1980); United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1977); cf. State v. Orona, 92 N.M. 450 , 589 P.2d 1041 (1979) (when trial court’s order prevented defendant from talking to witness, defendant needed to show no prejudice beyond a reasonable possibility that an avenue of defense was thus made unavailable). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert Cameron Taylorgreen1 sentence1989See United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1979), appeal after remand, 631 F.2d 419 (1980); United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1977); cf. State v. Orona, 92 N.M. 450 , 589 P.2d 1041 (1979) (when trial court’s order prevented defendant from talking to witness, defendant needed to show no prejudice beyond a reasonable possibility that an avenue of defense was thus made unavailable). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brooks v. Shanks
green
2 sentences2024Generally speaking, the “‘[s]tate creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion.’” Brooks v. Shanks, 1994-NMSC-113 , ¶ 10, 118 N.M. 716 , 885 P.2d 637 (quoting Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983)). 2024Generally speaking, the “‘[s]tate creates a protected liberty interest by placing substantive limitations on official discretion.’” Brooks v. Shanks, 1994-NMSC-113 , ¶ 10, 118 N.M. 716 , 885 P.2d 637 (quoting Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983)). | 2 | 2002–2024 |
State v. Orona
green
2 sentences1989See United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1979), appeal after remand, 631 F.2d 419 (1980); United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1977); cf. State v. Orona, 92 N.M. 450 , 589 P.2d 1041 (1979) (when trial court’s order prevented defendant from talking to witness, defendant needed to show no prejudice beyond a reasonable possibility that an avenue of defense was thus made unavailable). 1989See United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1979), appeal after remand, 631 F.2d 419 (1980); United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1977); cf. State v. Orona, 92 N.M. 450 , 589 P.2d 1041 (1979) (when trial court’s order prevented defendant from talking to witness, defendant needed to show no prejudice beyond a reasonable possibility that an avenue of defense was thus made unavailable). | 2 | 1989–2017 |
Perry v. Moya
neutral
1 sentence2024This change is reflected in our Rules of Criminal Procedure, making habeas “the proper avenue to challenge the unconstitutional deprivation of good-time credits, even if it would not result in an immediate release.” Perry v. Moya, 2012-NMSC-040, ¶ 12 , 289 P.3d 1247 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). interest. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Sarracino
green
2 sentences2024“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 P.2d 72 . {3} Defendant’s argument rests on the premise that he was not permitted to demonstrate his proficiency and familiarity with firearms to the jury. 2024“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 P.2d 72 . {3} Defendant’s argument rests on the premise that he was not permitted to demonstrate his proficiency and familiarity with firearms to the jury. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Maples
green
1 sentence2023An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Maples, 2013-NMCA-052, ¶ 13 , 300 P.3d 749 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Roybal
green
2 sentences2020Our notice proposed to affirm on the grounds that the alleged strategic decision-making by counsel to dissuade Defendant from testifying was not part of the record, and therefore a habeas corpus petition would be the appropriate avenue for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [CN 3] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises no new facts or arguments, and states that the private conversations with his attorney on which his claims are based are not part of the available record. [MIO 1] See State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 3 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (“If facts necessary to 2020Our notice proposed to affirm on the grounds that the alleged strategic decision-making by counsel to dissuade Defendant from testifying was not part of the record, and therefore a habeas corpus petition would be the appropriate avenue for his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. [CN 3] In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant raises no new facts or arguments, and states that the private conversations with his attorney on which his claims are based are not part of the available record. [MIO 1] See State v. Roybal, 2002-NMSC-027, ¶ 3 , 132 N.M. 657 , 54 P.3d 61 (“If facts necessary to | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Anaya
neutral
1 sentence2016However, no more prejudice 19 need be shown than that the trial court’s order may have made a potential avenue of 15 1 defense unavailable to the defendant.” State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 14 , 141 2 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). 3 Under these circumstances, due process warrants reversal of Defendant’s conviction 4 and remand for a new trial. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gushwa v. Hunt
green
2 sentences2014First, the avenue of inquiry was not entirely foreclosed: the 17 trial court did permit defense counsel to question one of the officers about his limited 18 recollection of other DWI investigations. [RP 76] Second, Defendant was able to 19 impeach the officers by focusing on far more relevant questions about what they did 2 1 and did not recall about Defendant’s case. [RP 71-72, 75-77, 79-80] Because 2 Defendant was permitted to thoroughly and effectively cross-examine the witnesses 3 and to impeach their credibility, we conclude that the few limitations imposed on the 4 scope of cross-examina 2014First, the avenue of inquiry was not entirely foreclosed: the 17 trial court did permit defense counsel to question one of the officers about his limited 18 recollection of other DWI investigations. [RP 76] Second, Defendant was able to 19 impeach the officers by focusing on far more relevant questions about what they did 2 1 and did not recall about Defendant’s case. [RP 71-72, 75-77, 79-80] Because 2 Defendant was permitted to thoroughly and effectively cross-examine the witnesses 3 and to impeach their credibility, we conclude that the few limitations imposed on the 4 scope of cross-examina | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Dixon v. State of New Mexico Taxation & Revenue Department
green
2 sentences2007See Rule 12-505(C); Paule, 2005-NMSC-021, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 82 , 117 P.3d 240 ; Dixon, 2004-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 3-8 , 135 N.M. 431 , 89 P.3d 680 . 2007See Rule 12-505(C); Paule, 2005-NMSC-021, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 82 , 117 P.3d 240 ; Dixon, 2004-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 3-8 , 135 N.M. 431 , 89 P.3d 680 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Paule v. Santa Fe County Board of County Commissioners
green
2 sentences2007See Rule 12-505(C); Paule, 2005-NMSC-021, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 82 , 117 P.3d 240 ; Dixon, 2004-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 3-8 , 135 N.M. 431 , 89 P.3d 680 . 2007See Rule 12-505(C); Paule, 2005-NMSC-021, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 82 , 117 P.3d 240 ; Dixon, 2004-NMCA-044, ¶¶ 3-8 , 135 N.M. 431 , 89 P.3d 680 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Henry Selva
green
1 sentence1989See United States v. Taylor, 607 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1979), appeal after remand, 631 F.2d 419 (1980); United States v. Selva, 559 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1977); cf. State v. Orona, 92 N.M. 450 , 589 P.2d 1041 (1979) (when trial court’s order prevented defendant from talking to witness, defendant needed to show no prejudice beyond a reasonable possibility that an avenue of defense was thus made unavailable). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.