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.
18 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1971–2017 0 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. Silvagreen2 sentences2012See id. at 631-32 , 545 P.2d at 490-91 . {30} Young rejected another attempt to substitute constructive notice for the requirements of the rule. 91 N.M. at 650 , 579 P.2d at 182 . 2012See id. at 631-32 , 545 P.2d at 490-91 . {30} Young rejected another attempt to substitute constructive notice for the requirements of the rule. 91 N.M. at 650 , 579 P.2d at 182 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sosagreen1 sentence2015See Sosa, 13 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 34 (“[C]ontext is paramount.”). 14 {25} Within this context, the Sosa factors, discussed above, do not point to reversal. 15 The specific statements that Defendant “want[ed] to walk away from this case” and 16 that Defendant was “a cold-blooded, manipulating, calculated killer” were isolated 17 comments, unrelated to any distinct constitutional protection, framed within a broad 18 argument about the insanity defense and about Defendant’s credibility as a witness. 19 See id. ¶ 31 (“[O]ur appellate courts have consistently upheld convictions where a 20 prosecutor’s | 1 | 1 |
State v. Younggreen2 sentences2012See id. at 631-32 , 545 P.2d at 490-91 . {30} Young rejected another attempt to substitute constructive notice for the requirements of the rule. 91 N.M. at 650 , 579 P.2d at 182 . 2012See id. at 631-32 , 545 P.2d at 490-91 . {30} Young rejected another attempt to substitute constructive notice for the requirements of the rule. 91 N.M. at 650 , 579 P.2d at 182 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mirelesgreen1 sentence2009The judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses, even 18 when unanimous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive on the jury, but 19 may be disregarded by it.”); and see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 93 N.M. 607, 610 , 603 P.2d 4 1 717, 720 (1979) (upholding a jury’s rejection of an insanity defense despite the fact 2 that the defense was supported by the testimony of two psychologists and one 3 psychiatrist); State v. Gardner, 85 N.M. 104, 107-08 , 509 P.2d 871, 874-75 (1973) 4 (upholding the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense, despite the testimony of two 5 experts t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2009The judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses, even 18 when unanimous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive on the jury, but 19 may be disregarded by it.”); and see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 93 N.M. 607, 610 , 603 P.2d 4 1 717, 720 (1979) (upholding a jury’s rejection of an insanity defense despite the fact 2 that the defense was supported by the testimony of two psychologists and one 3 psychiatrist); State v. Gardner, 85 N.M. 104, 107-08 , 509 P.2d 871, 874-75 (1973) 4 (upholding the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense, despite the testimony of two 5 experts t 2009The judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses, even 18 when unanimous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive on the jury, but 19 may be disregarded by it.”); and see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 93 N.M. 607, 610 , 603 P.2d 4 1 717, 720 (1979) (upholding a jury’s rejection of an insanity defense despite the fact 2 that the defense was supported by the testimony of two psychologists and one 3 psychiatrist); State v. Gardner, 85 N.M. 104, 107-08 , 509 P.2d 871, 874-75 (1973) 4 (upholding the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense, despite the testimony of two 5 experts t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sandersgreen2 sentences1998Precisely what it meant was a matter for the jury to decide.” However, when offered for this limited purpose, its relevance is considerably diminished. {15} We discussed Rule 11-106 in State v. Sanders, 117 N.M. 452, 458 , 872 P.2d 870, 876 (1994). 1998Precisely what it meant was a matter for the jury to decide.” However, when offered for this limited purpose, its relevance is considerably diminished. {15} We discussed Rule 11-106 in State v. Sanders, 117 N.M. 452, 458 , 872 P.2d 870, 876 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Murraygreen2 sentences1986See Crim.P.Rule 35(a); NMSA 1978, UJI Crim. 41.00 and 41.02 (Cum.Supp.1985); see generally State v. Murray, 91 N.M. 154 , 571 P.2d 421 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 249 , 572 P.2d 1257 (1977). 1986See Crim.P.Rule 35(a); NMSA 1978, UJI Crim. 41.00 and 41.02 (Cum.Supp.1985); see generally State v. Murray, 91 N.M. 154 , 571 P.2d 421 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 91 N.M. 249 , 572 P.2d 1257 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hartleygreen2 sentences1983See State v. Hartley, 90 N.M. 488 , 565 P.2d 658 (1977) (setting forth the essential elements of an insanity defense). 1983See State v. Hartley, 90 N.M. 488 , 565 P.2d 658 (1977) (setting forth the essential elements of an insanity defense). | 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. Victorian
green
2 sentences2017Cf. State v. James, 1971-NMCA-156 , ¶ 18, 83 N.M. 263 , 490 P.2d 1236 (noting that an outright finding of not guilty by a jury negates the jury’s need to analyze the defendant’s insanity defense), overruled in part by State v. Victorian, 1973-NMSC-008 , ¶ 12, 84 N.M. 491 , 505 P.2d 436 . {20} For this reason, UJI 14-5130 does not contradict either UJI 14-4506 or UJI 14-4505. 2009The judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses, even 18 when unanimous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive on the jury, but 19 may be disregarded by it.”); and see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 93 N.M. 607, 610 , 603 P.2d 4 1 717, 720 (1979) (upholding a jury’s rejection of an insanity defense despite the fact 2 that the defense was supported by the testimony of two psychologists and one 3 psychiatrist); State v. Gardner, 85 N.M. 104, 107-08 , 509 P.2d 871, 874-75 (1973) 4 (upholding the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense, despite the testimony of two 5 experts t | 2 | 2009–2017 |
State v. Victorian
green
2 sentences2017Cf. State v. James, 1971-NMCA-156 , ¶ 18, 83 N.M. 263 , 490 P.2d 1236 (noting that an outright finding of not guilty by a jury negates the jury’s need to analyze the defendant’s insanity defense), overruled in part by State v. Victorian, 1973-NMSC-008 , ¶ 12, 84 N.M. 491 , 505 P.2d 436 . {20} For this reason, UJI 14-5130 does not contradict either UJI 14-4506 or UJI 14-4505. 2009The judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses, even 18 when unanimous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive on the jury, but 19 may be disregarded by it.”); and see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 93 N.M. 607, 610 , 603 P.2d 4 1 717, 720 (1979) (upholding a jury’s rejection of an insanity defense despite the fact 2 that the defense was supported by the testimony of two psychologists and one 3 psychiatrist); State v. Gardner, 85 N.M. 104, 107-08 , 509 P.2d 871, 874-75 (1973) 4 (upholding the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense, despite the testimony of two 5 experts t | 2 | 2009–2017 |
State v. James
green
2 sentences2017Cf. State v. James, 1971-NMCA-156 , ¶ 18, 83 N.M. 263 , 490 P.2d 1236 (noting that an outright finding of not guilty by a jury negates the jury’s need to analyze the defendant’s insanity defense), overruled in part by State v. Victorian, 1973-NMSC-008 , ¶ 12, 84 N.M. 491 , 505 P.2d 436 . {20} For this reason, UJI 14-5130 does not contradict either UJI 14-4506 or UJI 14-4505. 2017Cf. State v. James, 1971-NMCA-156 , ¶ 18, 83 N.M. 263 , 490 P.2d 1236 (noting that an outright finding of not guilty by a jury negates the jury’s need to analyze the defendant’s insanity defense), overruled in part by State v. Victorian, 1973-NMSC-008 , ¶ 12, 84 N.M. 491 , 505 P.2d 436 . {20} For this reason, UJI 14-5130 does not contradict either UJI 14-4506 or UJI 14-4505. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
United States v. Kourtney Kauffman
green
2 sentences2016During Kauffman’s hearing on his ineffective 14 assistance of counsel claim, his former attorney testified that “even though he had a 15 letter from Kauffman’s psychiatrist concerning Kauffman’s mental condition, he did 16 not pursue any investigation into an insanity defense.” Id. at 190 . 2016Id. 6 {19} The Kauffman Court ultimately determined that there was “no reasonable 7 professional calculation which would support [Kauffman’s attorney’s] failure to 8 conduct any pre-trial investigation into the facts and law of an insanity defense under 9 the circumstances of [that] case.” Id. at 190 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Dorsey
green
1 sentence2009The judgments of experts or the inferences of skilled witnesses, even 18 when unanimous and uncontroverted, are not necessarily conclusive on the jury, but 19 may be disregarded by it.”); and see, e.g., State v. Dorsey, 93 N.M. 607, 610 , 603 P.2d 4 1 717, 720 (1979) (upholding a jury’s rejection of an insanity defense despite the fact 2 that the defense was supported by the testimony of two psychologists and one 3 psychiatrist); State v. Gardner, 85 N.M. 104, 107-08 , 509 P.2d 871, 874-75 (1973) 4 (upholding the jury’s rejection of an insanity defense, despite the testimony of two 5 experts t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Schoonmaker
green
1 sentence2009Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC-010, ¶ 31 . 23 A. FAILURE TO PRESENT THE INSANITY DEFENSE 2 1 {5} Defendant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel when his 2 attorney deprived him of an insanity defense, “in spite of the clear indications that 3 his mental condition at the time of the alleged murders was not sound[.]” According 4 to Defendant, this deprivation occurred when his private defense counsel failed to 5 take sufficient steps to secure funding for an expert from either the trial court or the 6 Public Defender Department, or, when such funding was not forthcoming, failing 7 t | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Ake v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 82 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . 2007Id. at 82 , 105 S.Ct. 1087 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Padilla
green
2 sentences2004In other words, in Padilla, we considered the use of mental illness to negate the element of deliberation and allowed its use for a limited diminished capacity defense; it does not stand for the proposition that any evidence of a mental condition, such as a general tendency to be impulsive and a poor planner, is admissible to prove that a defendant did not in fact, at the time of the killing, form a deliberate intent to kill. {79} In Padilla, this Court began by mentioning the insanity defense, which was described as "being incapable of preventing oneself from committing the act as a result of 2004In other words, in Padilla, we considered the use of mental illness to negate the element of deliberation and allowed its use for a limited diminished capacity defense; it does not stand for the proposition that any evidence of a mental condition, such as a general tendency to be impulsive and a poor planner, is admissible to prove that a defendant did not in fact, at the time of the killing, form a deliberate intent to kill. {79} In Padilla, this Court began by mentioning the insanity defense, which was described as "being incapable of preventing oneself from committing the act as a result of | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Estelle v. Smith
green
2 sentences2004In Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), the trial court sua sponte ordered the defendant to undergo a competency examination. 2004In Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454 , 101 S.Ct. 1866 , 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981), the trial court sua sponte ordered the defendant to undergo a competency examination. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Isiah
green
2 sentences1998We hold that this question was not plain error. {8} In Isiah, 109 N.M. at 24-25 , 781 P.2d at 296-97 , our Supreme Court held that questions intended to determine the defendant’s demeanor and mental state, in challenging an insanity defense, were not reversible error. 1998We hold that this question was not plain error. {8} In Isiah, 109 N.M. at 24-25 , 781 P.2d at 296-97 , our Supreme Court held that questions intended to determine the defendant’s demeanor and mental state, in challenging an insanity defense, were not reversible error. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Folk
green
2 sentences1986With respect to the insanity defense, as the supreme court has indicated in State v. Folk, 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 (1952), the trial court has some discretion in evaluating the substance of the claim. 1986With respect to the insanity defense, as the supreme court has indicated in State v. Folk, 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 (1952), the trial court has some discretion in evaluating the substance of the claim. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
State v. Ruiz
green
2 sentences1981In State v. Ruiz, 94 N.M. 771 , 617 P.2d 160 (Ct.App.1980), the trial court refused a requested instruction which would have told the jury how it was to determine whether the defendant was competent to give a statement. 1981In State v. Ruiz, 94 N.M. 771 , 617 P.2d 160 (Ct.App.1980), the trial court refused a requested instruction which would have told the jury how it was to determine whether the defendant was competent to give a statement. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Marquez
green
1 sentence1981In State v. Marquez, 96 N.M. 740 , 634 P.2d 1298 (Ct.App.1981), we held it would have been error to refuse a legally correct definition of “mental disease” as used in the approved instruction on the insanity defense. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
State v. Lujan
green
2 sentences1980State v. Lujan, 87 N.M. 400 , 534 P.2d 1112 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025 , 96 S.Ct. 469 , 46 L.Ed.2d 400 (1975). 1980State v. Lujan, 87 N.M. 400 , 534 P.2d 1112 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025 , 96 S.Ct. 469 , 46 L.Ed.2d 400 (1975). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Vlahakis v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1980State v. Lujan, 87 N.M. 400 , 534 P.2d 1112 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025 , 96 S.Ct. 469 , 46 L.Ed.2d 400 (1975). 1980State v. Lujan, 87 N.M. 400 , 534 P.2d 1112 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025 , 96 S.Ct. 469 , 46 L.Ed.2d 400 (1975). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
A. Wichman & Son v. Fox
green
2 sentences1980State v. Lujan, 87 N.M. 400 , 534 P.2d 1112 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025 , 96 S.Ct. 469 , 46 L.Ed.2d 400 (1975). 1980State v. Lujan, 87 N.M. 400 , 534 P.2d 1112 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1025 , 96 S.Ct. 469 , 46 L.Ed.2d 400 (1975). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In Re Pray
green
2 sentences1976There was a due process issue in State v. Maryott, supra, and In Re Pray, 133 Vt. 253 , 336 A.2d 174 (1975) because of the insanity defense. 1976There was a due process issue in State v. Maryott, supra, and In Re Pray, 133 Vt. 253 , 336 A.2d 174 (1975) because of the insanity defense. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Murphy
green
2 sentences1976There was a due process issue in State v. Murphy, 56 Wash.2d 761 , 355 P.2d 323 (1960) because in that case the jury determined the penalty for first degree murder. 1976There was a due process issue in State v. Murphy, 56 Wash.2d 761 , 355 P.2d 323 (1960) because in that case the jury determined the penalty for first degree murder. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Zarafonetis
green
2 sentences1971State v. Zarafonetis, 81 N.M. 674 , 472 P.2d 388 (Ct.App.1970). 1971State v. Zarafonetis, 81 N.M. 674 , 472 P.2d 388 (Ct.App.1970). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.