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 2000–2024 6 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. Barbergreen2 sentences2024See State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide a definition “was a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction” because causation was in issue); see also Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 26-32 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide a definition did not implicate a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction because “the third element of the jury instruction . . . subsume[d] a finding on” the missing element). 2023“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Id. {12} In Barber, our Supreme Court concluded that a missing definition instruction clarifying the meaning of possession did “not implicate a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction,” which would ordinarily constitute fundamental error, whether or not the defendant objected to the missing elements instruction. | 5 | 9 |
State v. Mascarenasgreen2 sentences2024See State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide a definition “was a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction” because causation was in issue); see also Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 26-32 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide a definition did not implicate a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction because “the third element of the jury instruction . . . subsume[d] a finding on” the missing element). 2024See State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide a definition “was a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction” because causation was in issue); see also Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 26-32 (concluding that the trial court’s failure to provide a definition did not implicate a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction because “the third element of the jury instruction . . . subsume[d] a finding on” the missing element). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Osbornegreen2 sentences2019A missing elements instruction, in turn, ordinarily does result in fundamental error, because it renders the defendant’s guilt “so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the verdict to stand.” Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 24 ; see also State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶¶ 1, 41, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (finding fundamental error where the defendant was charged with criminal sexual contact with a minor, and jury instructions failed to require the jury to resolve the issue, raised by the evidence presented, of whether the defendant’s touching was done innocently or in a sexual and u 2019A missing elements instruction, in turn, ordinarily does result in fundamental error, because it renders the defendant’s guilt “so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the verdict to stand.” Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 24 ; see also State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶¶ 1, 41, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (finding fundamental error where the defendant was charged with criminal sexual contact with a minor, and jury instructions failed to require the jury to resolve the issue, raised by the evidence presented, of whether the defendant’s touching was done innocently or in a sexual and u | 2 | 2 |
State v. Kirbygreen2 sentences2000See State v. Kirby, 1996-NMSC-069 , ¶ ¶ 3-6, 122 N.M. 609 , 930 P.2d 144 (characterizing a jury instruction that required the State prove the defendant unlawfully drove a wide mobile home transport vehicle “such that an ordinary person would anticipate that death might occur under the circumstances” as a failure to instruct on the essential element of criminal negligence). 2000See State v. Kirby, 1996-NMSC-069 , ¶ ¶ 3-6, 122 N.M. 609 , 930 P.2d 144 (characterizing a jury instruction that required the State prove the defendant unlawfully drove a wide mobile home transport vehicle “such that an ordinary person would anticipate that death might occur under the circumstances” as a failure to instruct on the essential element of criminal negligence). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Guerragreen2 sentences2021State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 . 019, ¶ 20, unless the missing definition is “akin to a missing elements instruction.” State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (holding that “the jury instructions should have included a definition of ‘reckless disregard’ to prevent confusion of the standard necessary to sustain a conviction” and that “the trial court’s failure to provide the instruction was a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction”). 2021See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (providing that appellate courts are under no obligation to review unclear or undeveloped arguments). requested an instruction defining possession at trial, it would have been reversible error to deny the request, but rejecting the defendant’s fundamental error claim because the missing definition did not implicate “a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {27} Beyond the jury instruction issue, Defendant relatedly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to supp | 1 | 2 |
Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerquegreen2 sentences2024See Anderson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {29} In any appeal before this Court “it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments that the district court has erred.” Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc., v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 . 2024See Anderson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {29} In any appeal before this Court “it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments that the district court has erred.” Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc., v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Anderson and State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2024However, “[o]ur courts have” repeatedly “stated that a missing definition generally cannot result in the sort of fundamental unfairness that undermines the integrity of the judicial system unless, the missing definition is akin to a missing elements instruction.” State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶ 16 , 493 P.3d 434 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). {24} Fundamental error analysis in this context begins with applying the standard for reversible error by determining if a reasonable juror “would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction[s]. 2024However, “[o]ur courts have” repeatedly “stated that a missing definition generally cannot result in the sort of fundamental unfairness that undermines the integrity of the judicial system unless, the missing definition is akin to a missing elements instruction.” State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶ 16 , 493 P.3d 434 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). {24} Fundamental error analysis in this context begins with applying the standard for reversible error by determining if a reasonable juror “would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction[s]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ervingreen2 sentences2021Compare State v. Ervin, 1981-NMCA-068 , ¶ 5, 96 N.M. 366 , 630 P.2d 765 (holding that no evidence presented that the failure to define “dwelling” in connection with a burglary charge was a critical determination), with Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 26 (concluding there to be fundamental error where the jury may have applied the “common understandings of the terms ‘nudity’ and ‘harmful to minors’ rather than their statutory definitions”). {18} Defendants contend that “the misalignment between the meaning of the statute and the range of conduct covered by the elements instruction given to the jury con 2021Compare State v. Ervin, 1981-NMCA-068 , ¶ 5, 96 N.M. 366 , 630 P.2d 765 (holding that no evidence presented that the failure to define “dwelling” in connection with a burglary charge was a critical determination), with Luna, 2018-NMCA-025 , ¶ 26 (concluding there to be fundamental error where the jury may have applied the “common understandings of the terms ‘nudity’ and ‘harmful to minors’ rather than their statutory definitions”). {18} Defendants contend that “the misalignment between the meaning of the statute and the range of conduct covered by the elements instruction given to the jury con | 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. Anderson
green
2 sentences2024Thus, we conclude that once the district court determined the propriety of giving it, the failure to provide the no-retreat instruction that informed a determination critical to the case was akin to a missing elements instruction. 2016-NMCA-007 , ¶ 15 (citations omitted). 2017As such, once the propriety of giving UJI 14-5190 has been determined, “the 8 failure to provide the no-retreat instruction that informed a determination critical to 9 the case [is] akin to a missing elements instruction” and constitutes reversible error. 10 Anderson, 2016-NMCA-007, ¶15 ; see id. ¶ 19 (addressing the stand your ground 11 instruction only in the context of a fundamental error analysis when sufficient 12 evidence was presented to support giving this instruction and it was mistakenly 13 omitted). | 2 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Luna
green
1 sentence2021We are guided by State v. Luna, which elaborates that the “failure to give a definitional instruction when the term being defined has a legal meaning different from the commonly understood lay interpretation of the term may result in jury confusion that could place the verdict in doubt.” 2018- NMCA-025, ¶ 22, 458 P.3d 457 (emphasis added) (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Stephens
green
2 sentences2020In other words, failing to instruct the jury on a definition or amplification of the elements of the crime may prevent the jury from making a “critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20; cf. State v. Stephens, 1979- NMSC-076, ¶ 20, 93 N.M. 458 , 601 P.2d 428 (“[T]he failure to instruct the jury on the definition or the amplification of the elements does not constitute error.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Contreras, 1995-NMSC-056 , ¶ 19, 120 N.M. 486 , 903 P.2d 228 . 2020In other words, failing to instruct the jury on a definition or amplification of the elements of the crime may prevent the jury from making a “critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20; cf. State v. Stephens, 1979- NMSC-076, ¶ 20, 93 N.M. 458 , 601 P.2d 428 (“[T]he failure to instruct the jury on the definition or the amplification of the elements does not constitute error.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Contreras, 1995-NMSC-056 , ¶ 19, 120 N.M. 486 , 903 P.2d 228 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Contreras
green
2 sentences2020In other words, failing to instruct the jury on a definition or amplification of the elements of the crime may prevent the jury from making a “critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20; cf. State v. Stephens, 1979- NMSC-076, ¶ 20, 93 N.M. 458 , 601 P.2d 428 (“[T]he failure to instruct the jury on the definition or the amplification of the elements does not constitute error.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Contreras, 1995-NMSC-056 , ¶ 19, 120 N.M. 486 , 903 P.2d 228 . 2020In other words, failing to instruct the jury on a definition or amplification of the elements of the crime may prevent the jury from making a “critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20; cf. State v. Stephens, 1979- NMSC-076, ¶ 20, 93 N.M. 458 , 601 P.2d 428 (“[T]he failure to instruct the jury on the definition or the amplification of the elements does not constitute error.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Contreras, 1995-NMSC-056 , ¶ 19, 120 N.M. 486 , 903 P.2d 228 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Sosa
green
2 sentences2019A missing elements instruction, in turn, ordinarily does result in fundamental error, because it renders the defendant’s guilt “so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the verdict to stand.” Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 24 ; see also State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶¶ 1, 41, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (finding fundamental error where the defendant was charged with criminal sexual contact with a minor, and jury instructions failed to require the jury to resolve the issue, raised by the evidence presented, of whether the defendant’s touching was done innocently or in a sexual and u 2019A missing elements instruction, in turn, ordinarily does result in fundamental error, because it renders the defendant’s guilt “so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the verdict to stand.” Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 24 ; see also State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶¶ 1, 41, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (finding fundamental error where the defendant was charged with criminal sexual contact with a minor, and jury instructions failed to require the jury to resolve the issue, raised by the evidence presented, of whether the defendant’s touching was done innocently or in a sexual and u | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Samora
green
1 sentence2019In other words, an omitted elements instruction constitutes fundamental error where it leaves us “with no way of knowing whether the conviction was or was not based on the lack of the essential element.” State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 230 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Benally
green
1 sentence2018Thus, this is not an issue of omission or failure to provide an 10 accurate rendition of the relevant law, see Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , and 11 Defendant’s proffered causation instruction, which served only to amplify an 12 element that was already clear from the language of the child abuse instruction, 13 was not akin to a missing elements instruction. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Doe
green
2 sentences2004This missing element created fundamental error both because "it is the duty of the court, not the defendant, to instruct the jury on the essential elements of a crime," Osborne, 111 N.M. at 662 , 808 P.2d at 632 , and because, "if the instruction omitted an element which was at issue in the case, the error could be considered fundamental: The question of guilt would be so doubtful that it would `shock the conscience' of this Court to permit the conviction to stand." Orosco, 113 N.M. at 783 , 833 P.2d at 1149 . {38} "In determining what is or is not an essential element of an offense, we begin 2004This missing element created fundamental error both because "it is the duty of the court, not the defendant, to instruct the jury on the essential elements of a crime," Osborne, 111 N.M. at 662 , 808 P.2d at 632 , and because, "if the instruction omitted an element which was at issue in the case, the error could be considered fundamental: The question of guilt would be so doubtful that it would `shock the conscience' of this Court to permit the conviction to stand." Orosco, 113 N.M. at 783 , 833 P.2d at 1149 . {38} "In determining what is or is not an essential element of an offense, we begin | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Orosco
green
2 sentences2004This missing element created fundamental error both because "it is the duty of the court, not the defendant, to instruct the jury on the essential elements of a crime," Osborne, 111 N.M. at 662 , 808 P.2d at 632 , and because, "if the instruction omitted an element which was at issue in the case, the error could be considered fundamental: The question of guilt would be so doubtful that it would `shock the conscience' of this Court to permit the conviction to stand." Orosco, 113 N.M. at 783 , 833 P.2d at 1149 . {38} "In determining what is or is not an essential element of an offense, we begin 2004This missing element created fundamental error both because "it is the duty of the court, not the defendant, to instruct the jury on the essential elements of a crime," Osborne, 111 N.M. at 662 , 808 P.2d at 632 , and because, "if the instruction omitted an element which was at issue in the case, the error could be considered fundamental: The question of guilt would be so doubtful that it would `shock the conscience' of this Court to permit the conviction to stand." Orosco, 113 N.M. at 783 , 833 P.2d at 1149 . {38} "In determining what is or is not an essential element of an offense, we begin | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Armijo
green
2 sentences2004Cf. State v. Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶¶ 5-6 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 P.2d 764 (discussing the necessity of an omitted instruction to clarify the slight, but critical distinction between felony and misdemeanor aggravated battery). {26} In this case, we conclude that the missing definition of possession does not implicate "a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction," as occurred in Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 . 2004Cf. State v. Armijo, 1999-NMCA-087, ¶¶ 5-6 , 127 N.M. 594 , 985 P.2d 764 (discussing the necessity of an omitted instruction to clarify the slight, but critical distinction between felony and misdemeanor aggravated battery). {26} In this case, we conclude that the missing definition of possession does not implicate "a critical determination akin to a missing elements instruction," as occurred in Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 20, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.