117 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2025 30 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. Altgilbersgreen2 sentences2016See State v. Altgilbers, 1989-NMCA-106 , ¶ 56, 109 N.M. 453 , 4 786 P.2d 680 (stating that “[n]o juror need have a precise day in his or her own mind 5 in order to vote for conviction” for purposes of a sufficiency of the evidence analysis 6 and concluding that sufficient evidence supported verdicts in spite of the lack of 7 evidence of specific dates of the occurrence of criminal sexual acts). 2016See State v. Altgilbers, 1989-NMCA-106 , ¶ 56, 109 N.M. 453 , 4 786 P.2d 680 (stating that “[n]o juror need have a precise day in his or her own mind 5 in order to vote for conviction” for purposes of a sufficiency of the evidence analysis 6 and concluding that sufficient evidence supported verdicts in spite of the lack of 7 evidence of specific dates of the occurrence of criminal sexual acts). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Leybagreen2 sentences2025More specifically, it is evidentiary error that is at issue, which requires “a case-by-case examination” where “courts . . . evaluate all circumstances surrounding the error.” Id. ¶ 24; see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 44 , 275 P.3d 110 (“When assessing two cases that are factually analogous, with similar errors, the reviewing court thus may find the impact of the error harmful in one case and harmless in the other.”). {43} “To judge the ‘probable’ effect of an evidentiary error,” courts examine the following factors: “the error itself, including the source of the error and the emp 2025This requires an examination of the error itself, which [may] . . . include an examination of the source of the error and the emphasis placed upon the error.” Id. ¶ 43; see also State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 1215 (“To put the error in context, we often look at the other, non[]objectionable evidence of guilt, not for a sufficiency-of-the- evidence analysis, but to evaluate what role the error played at trial.”). {12} Here, Mr. Leland’s statements—which included identification of both Defendant and the location of the incident—were cumulative of other evidence and corroborated b | 3 | 16 |
Weidler v. Big J Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2018"In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary." Weidler v. Big J Enters ., 1998-NMCA-021 , ¶ 30, 124 N.M. 591 , 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {36} As we understand it, Husband's claim is three-fold. 2018"In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary." Weidler v. Big J Enters ., 1998-NMCA-021 , ¶ 30, 124 N.M. 591 , 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {36} As we understand it, Husband's claim is three-fold. | 3 | 16 |
State v. Apodacagreen2 sentences2012The State’s theory 12 of the case was that the two gunmen who entered Victim’s house were Defendant 13 and Michael Martinez, with Defendant being the actual shooter, while Gutierrez 14 drove the getaway vehicle. 15 When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine 16 “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to 17 support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Sutphin, 107 N.M. 18 126, 131, 753 P.2d 1314, 1319 (1988) “We view the evidence in the light most 4 1 favorable to supporting the verdict and resolve all conflic 2003Reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge on appeal, “[w]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to supporting the verdict and resolve all conflicts and indulge all permissible inferences in favor of upholding the verdict.” State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 766 , 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Tollardogreen2 sentences2025More specifically, it is evidentiary error that is at issue, which requires “a case-by-case examination” where “courts . . . evaluate all circumstances surrounding the error.” Id. ¶ 24; see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 44 , 275 P.3d 110 (“When assessing two cases that are factually analogous, with similar errors, the reviewing court thus may find the impact of the error harmful in one case and harmless in the other.”). {43} “To judge the ‘probable’ effect of an evidentiary error,” courts examine the following factors: “the error itself, including the source of the error and the emp 2025More specifically, it is evidentiary error that is at issue, which requires “a case-by-case examination” where “courts . . . evaluate all circumstances surrounding the error.” Id. ¶ 24; see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 44 , 275 P.3d 110 (“When assessing two cases that are factually analogous, with similar errors, the reviewing court thus may find the impact of the error harmful in one case and harmless in the other.”). {43} “To judge the ‘probable’ effect of an evidentiary error,” courts examine the following factors: “the error itself, including the source of the error and the emp | 3 | 4 |
State v. Sutphingreen2 sentences2022Defendant 2 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish both the element of possession 3 and the element of knowledge. 4 A. Standard of Review 5 {4} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we must determine 6 “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to 7 support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element 8 essential to a conviction.” State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031 , ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126 , 9 753 P.2d 1314 . 2022Defendant 2 challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish both the element of possession 3 and the element of knowledge. 4 A. Standard of Review 5 {4} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence challenge, we must determine 6 “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to 7 support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element 8 essential to a conviction.” State v. Sutphin, 1988-NMSC-031 , ¶ 21, 107 N.M. 126 , 9 753 P.2d 1314 . | 2 | 5 |
State v. Dowlinggreen2 sentences2023See State v. Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 18 , 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 (reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim “under the erroneous instruction provided to the jury at trial”). 2023See State v. Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 18 , 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 (reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim “under the erroneous instruction provided to the jury at trial”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2016The Court of Appeals determined that the evidence was as supportive of Kent’s reliance as of the alternative finding that, “irrespective of [Garcia’s] marital status, . . . [Kent] would have allowed [Garcia] to access his money to assist with her children’s financial needs because they were close friends, he felt sorry for her, and because she provided him with assistance and companionship.” Id. {24} We clarify that the Court of Appeals misapplied the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review in reversing Garcia’s fraud conviction. 2016The Court of Appeals determined that the evidence was as supportive of Kent’s reliance as of the alternative finding that, “irrespective of [Garcia’s] marital status, . . . [Kent] would have allowed [Garcia] to access his money to assist with her children’s financial needs because they were close friends, he felt sorry for her, and because she provided him with assistance and companionship.” Id. {24} We clarify that the Court of Appeals misapplied the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard of review in reversing Garcia’s fraud conviction. | 2 | 3 |
McDonald v. Zimmer Inc.green2 sentences2025Dep’t of Tax’n & Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 17 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 (“Where an appellant fails to include the substance of all the evidence bearing upon a proposition, this Court will not consider a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); McDonald, 2020-NMCA-020, ¶ 32 (same). 2021Because Constructors fails to set forth the substance of all the evidence bearing on the district court’s findings pertaining to breach, Constructors has waived any challenge to those findings.5 See Crutchfield, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 17 (“Where an appellant fails to include the substance of all the evidence bearing upon a proposition, this Court will not consider a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); see also McDonald, 2020-NMCA-020, ¶ 32 (same). 5Even were we to review the district court’s findings for substantial evidence, we think it highly d | 2 | 2 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2016The Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s dicta in which we noted that we had previously observed that “‘[e]vidence equally consistent with two inferences [one of which establishes a defendant’s innocence] does not, without more, provide a basis for adopting either one—especially beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, ¶ 17 (quoting Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Garcia, 1992-NMSC-048 , ¶ 32, 114 N.M. 269 , 837 P.2d 862 (internal quotation marks omitted))). 2016The Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s dicta in which we noted that we had previously observed that “‘[e]vidence equally consistent with two inferences [one of which establishes a defendant’s innocence] does not, without more, provide a basis for adopting either one — especially beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, ¶ 17 (quoting Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Garcia, 1992-NMSC-048 , ¶ 32, 114 N.M. 269 , 837 P.2d 862 (internal quotation marks omitted))). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2012Cf. Davis, 1998-NMCA-148, ¶¶ 17, 22 (considering the sufficiency of the evidence challenge in light of, among other things, the defendant’s statements that he was responsible for the victim’s various daily living needs). 2011Cf. Davis, 1998-NMCA-148, ¶¶ 17, 22 (considering the sufficiency of the evidence challenge in light of, among other things, the defendant’s statements that he was responsible for the victim’s various daily living needs). | 2 | 2 |
| Montoya v. Torresgreen | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Sandersgreen | 2 | 2 |
Crutchfield v. New Mexico Department of Taxation & Revenuegreen2 sentences2025Dep’t of Tax’n & Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 17 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 (“Where an appellant fails to include the substance of all the evidence bearing upon a proposition, this Court will not consider a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); McDonald, 2020-NMCA-020, ¶ 32 (same). 2025Dep’t of Tax’n & Revenue, 2005-NMCA-022, ¶ 17 , 137 N.M. 26 , 106 P.3d 1273 (“Where an appellant fails to include the substance of all the evidence bearing upon a proposition, this Court will not consider a sufficiency of the evidence challenge.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); McDonald, 2020-NMCA-020, ¶ 32 (same). | 1 | 4 |
Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters & International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Las Crucesgreen2 sentences2013This is because the question on 4 appeal “is not whether substantial evidence exists to support the opposite result, but 5 rather whether such evidence supports the result reached.” Las Cruces Prof’l Fire 6 Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 329 , 940 P.2d 177 . 7 “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a 8 light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and 9 evidence to the contrary.” Weidler v. Big J Enters., 1998-NMCA-021, ¶ 30 , 124 N.M. 10 591, 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation 2013This is because the question on 4 appeal “is not whether substantial evidence exists to support the opposite result, but 5 rather whether such evidence supports the result reached.” Las Cruces Prof’l Fire 6 Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 329 , 940 P.2d 177 . 7 “In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a 8 light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and 9 evidence to the contrary.” Weidler v. Big J Enters., 1998-NMCA-021, ¶ 30 , 124 N.M. 10 591, 953 P.2d 1089 (alteration, internal quotation | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Gabriel M.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jimenezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maldonadogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vargasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Druktenisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Postgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Faulkner v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clay v. Kelleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sotelogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rudolfogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Landavazo v. Sanchezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Chavezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Watkinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nicholsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Huntergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Martinez v. Southwest Landfills, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Lankfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Clovis National Bank v. Harmongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Rossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Carpentergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cunningham
green
2 sentences2024Under the sufficiency of the evidence standard, evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, . . . resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 . 2024Under the sufficiency of the evidence standard, evidence is viewed “in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, . . . resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict.” State v. Cunningham, 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 26 , 128 N.M. 711 , 998 P.2d 176 . | 11 | 2009–2024 |
Littell v. Allstate Insurance Company
green
2 sentences2023Co., 2008-NMCA-012, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 506 , 177 P.3d 1080 (“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {32} The dissent argues that because Mr. Rhodes and PESCO did not use CLA’s results to make business decisions, CLA’s cost accounting method is not used by PESCO in its other business activities. 2023Co., 2008-NMCA-012, ¶ 13 , 143 N.M. 506 , 177 P.3d 1080 (“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {32} The dissent argues that because Mr. Rhodes and PESCO did not use CLA’s results to make business decisions, CLA’s cost accounting method is not used by PESCO in its other business activities. | 4 | 2012–2023 |
State v. Montoya
green
2 sentences2023We disagree. {25} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a “rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts required for a conviction.” See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 52 , 345 P.3d 1056 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2023In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 52 , 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 4 | 2019–2023 |
State v. Montoya
green
2 sentences2023We disagree. {25} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we review evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether a “rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential facts required for a conviction.” See State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 52 , 345 P.3d 1056 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2023In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Montoya, 2015-NMSC-010, ¶ 52 , 345 P.3d 1056 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 2019–2023 |
Charles v. Regents of New Mexico State University
green
2 sentences2021State Univ., 2011-NMCA-057, ¶ 15 , 150 N.M. 17 , 256 P.3d 29 (“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {12} In sum, Constructors’ failure to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure dooms any challenge of the district court’s findings pertaining to breach. 2021State Univ., 2011-NMCA-057, ¶ 15 , 150 N.M. 17 , 256 P.3d 29 (“In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, this Court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party and disregards any inferences and evidence to the contrary.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {12} In sum, Constructors’ failure to adhere to the Rules of Appellate Procedure dooms any challenge of the district court’s findings pertaining to breach. | 3 | 2015–2021 |
State v. Hornbeck
green
2 sentences2015Standard of Review and General Principles {17} In conducting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to [the] conviction.” State v. Hornbeck, 2008-NMCA-039, ¶ 33 , 143 N.M. 562 , 178 P.3d 847 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2015Standard of Review and General Principles {17} In conducting a sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict “to determine whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to [the] conviction.” State v. Hornbeck, 2008-NMCA-039, ¶ 33 , 143 N.M. 562 , 178 P.3d 847 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 3 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Perea
green
2 sentences2011State v. Perea, 2001-NMSC-026, ¶ 5 , 130 N.M. 732 , 31 P.3d 1006 . 2011State v. Perea, 2001-NMSC-026, ¶ 5 , 130 N.M. 732 , 31 P.3d 1006 . | 3 | 2006–2011 |
State v. Slade
green
2 sentences2025Sufficiency of the Evidence A. Standard of Review {3} The sufficiency of the evidence standard of review “is highly deferential to a jury’s decision.” State v. Slade, 2014-NMCA-088, ¶ 14 , 331 P.3d 930 . 2017We shall address any interpretation of 2 the requisite statute or jury instruction separately. 3 {11} “[A]ppellate courts review sufficiency of the evidence from a highly deferential 4 standpoint.” State v. Slade, 2014-NMCA-088, ¶ 13 , 331 P.3d 930 (omission, internal 5 quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 2 | 2017–2025 |
State v. Storey
green
2 sentences2021State v. Storey, 2018-NMCA-009, ¶ 45 , 410 P.3d 256 . 2021State v. Storey, 2018-NMCA-009, ¶ 45 , 410 P.3d 256 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Storey
green
2 sentences2021State v. Storey, 2018-NMCA-009, ¶ 45 , 410 P.3d 256 . 2021State v. Storey, 2018-NMCA-009, ¶ 45 , 410 P.3d 256 . | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Duran
green
2 sentences2019Standard of Review {34} In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 5 , 140 N.M. 94 , 140 P.3d 515 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019Standard of Review {34} In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must determine “whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction.” State v. Duran, 2006-NMSC-035, ¶ 5 , 140 N.M. 94 , 140 P.3d 515 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2016–2019 |
State v. Sanchez
green
2 sentences2019On appeal, “[w]e will not reweigh the evidence or attempt to draw alternative inferences from the evidence [as] we do not share the original ability of the jury to view the evidence and witnesses firsthand; therefore, we defer to the jury’s findings.” State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMCA-077, ¶ 16 , 355 P.3d 51 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2016On appeal, “we will not reweigh the evidence or attempt 4 to draw alternative inferences from the evidence” as “we do not share the original 5 ability of the jury to view the evidence and witnesses firsthand; therefore, we defer to 6 the jury’s findings.” State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMCA-077, ¶ 16 , 355 P.3d 51 (internal 7 quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2016–2019 |
State v. Treadway
green
2 sentences2018STANDARD OF REVIEW {13} When examining a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we consider "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Treadway , 2006-NMSC-008 , ¶ 7, 139 N.M. 167 , 130 P.3d 746 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018STANDARD OF REVIEW {13} When examining a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we consider "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Treadway , 2006-NMSC-008 , ¶ 7, 139 N.M. 167 , 130 P.3d 746 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Treadway
green
2 sentences2018STANDARD OF REVIEW {13} When examining a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we consider “whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Treadway, 2006-NMSC-008, ¶ 7 , 139 N.M. 167 , 130 P.3d 746 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018STANDARD OF REVIEW {13} When examining a sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim, we consider "whether, after reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Treadway , 2006-NMSC-008 , ¶ 7, 139 N.M. 167 , 130 P.3d 746 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Astorga
green
2 sentences2016Defendant contends that “[s]ome of the videos [used to determine the value shoplifted] were from another store.” {57} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, we ask whether the evidence is such that, when viewed “in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict[,] . . . a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential [elements] required for a conviction.” State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 57 , 343 P.3d 1245 (internal quotation marks and citat 2016Defendant contends that “[s]ome of the videos [used to determine the value shoplifted] were from another store.” {57} When reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim on appeal, we ask whether the evidence is such that, when viewed “in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict, indulging all reasonable inferences and resolving all conflicts in the evidence in favor of the verdict},] ... a rational jury could have found beyond a reasonable doubt the essential [elements] required for a conviction.” State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 57 , 343 P.3d 1245 (internal quotation marks and citatio | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2016The Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s dicta in which we noted that we had previously observed that “‘[e]vidence equally consistent with two inferences [one of which establishes a defendant’s innocence] does not, without more, provide a basis for adopting either one — especially beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, ¶ 17 (quoting Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Garcia, 1992-NMSC-048 , ¶ 32, 114 N.M. 269 , 837 P.2d 862 (internal quotation marks omitted))). 2016The Court of Appeals relied on this Court’s dicta in which we noted that we had previously observed that “‘[e]vidence equally consistent with two inferences [one of which establishes a defendant’s innocence] does not, without more, provide a basis for adopting either one — especially beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, ¶ 17 (quoting Garcia, 2005-NMSC-017, ¶ 12 (quoting State v. Garcia, 1992-NMSC-048 , ¶ 32, 114 N.M. 269 , 837 P.2d 862 (internal quotation marks omitted))). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Reed
green
2 sentences2011However, in stealth fashion, Defendant also raises two other issues in the body of the brief: (1) whether the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on depraved mind murder because “[t]he given jury instructions did not clearly explain that to convict of first degree depraved mind murder there must be much more than simply establishing that reckless conduct caused the death of a person,” and (2) whether three isolated statements made by the prosecution improperly inflamed the jury’s passions, thereby encouraging them to convict Defendant of depraved mind murder instead of vehicular h 2011However, in stealth fashion, Defendant also raises two other issues in the body of the brief: (1) whether the trial court erred in its instruction to the jury on depraved mind murder because “[t]he given jury instructions did not clearly explain that to convict of first degree depraved mind murder there must be much more than simply establishing that reckless conduct caused the death of a person,” and (2) whether three isolated statements made by the prosecution improperly inflamed the jury’s passions, thereby encouraging them to convict Defendant of depraved mind murder instead of vehicular h | 2 | 2011–2015 |
| State v. Chavez green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Vest green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Holt green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Montoya green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Roybal green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Knight green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Willyard green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Rojo green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Suazo green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Bonney green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| People v. Richards green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Samora green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Russell v. Protective Insurance red | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| State v. Lovett green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Schaaf green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Serna green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Romero green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Branch green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Flores green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Gormley v. Coca-Cola Enterprises green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Patterson v. Hewitt neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Kent green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Sanchez green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.