foundation requirement in New Mexico

17 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2024 2 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.

Followed or applied (9)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Garciagreen nm · 1942 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1986–2000 2 sentences 2000"Error that is fundamental must be such 180 error as goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant's rights or must go to the foundation of the case or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive." State v. Garcia, 46 N.M. 302, 309 , 128 P.2d 459, 462 (1942). 2000"Error that is fundamental must be such 180 error as goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant's rights or must go to the foundation of the case or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive." State v. Garcia, 46 N.M. 302, 309 , 128 P.2d 459, 462 (1942).	2	2
State v. Hendersongreen nmctapp · 1983 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1997–2017 2 sentences 2017Photographic evidence is admissible "when a sponsoring witness can testify that it is a fair and accurate representation of the subject matter, based on that witness's personal observation." State v. Henderson , 1983-NMCA-094 , ¶ 8, 100 N.M. 260 , 669 P.2d 736 . {32} Defendant's argument on appeal, challenging the adequacy of the State's proof of the chain of custody of the knife, was minimally developed in his brief in chief. 2017Photographic evidence is admissible "when a sponsoring witness can testify that it is a fair and accurate representation of the subject matter, based on that witness's personal observation." State v. Henderson , 1983-NMCA-094 , ¶ 8, 100 N.M. 260 , 669 P.2d 736 . {32} Defendant's argument on appeal, challenging the adequacy of the State's proof of the chain of custody of the knife, was minimally developed in his brief in chief.	1	3
State v. Martinezgreen nm · 2007 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2010–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 11 , 127 N.M.686, 986 P.2d 482 (“[W]e defer to the fact finder for the factual determination of conflicting facts[.]”); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC- 001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that the fact-finder “is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts”). {18} As explained above, the machine met the certification requirements, thereby satisfying the foundation standard for admissibility set forth in Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶ 12 . 2010Id. ¶ 22. 4 In regard to calibration, the Court in Martinez pointed out that the district court 5 relied on State v. Smith, 1999-NMCA-154, ¶ 11 , 128 N.M. 467 , 994 P.2d 47 , as 6 holding that “an officer [can] testify as to the contents of calibration logs without 7 having first-hand knowledge of the actual calibrations.” Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025 , 8 ¶¶ 3, 21.	1	2
State v. Gallegosgreen nmctapp · 1977 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024See State v. Gallegos, 1977-NMCA-113 , ¶ 26, 91 N.M. 107 , 570 P.2d 938 (“The fact that the witness had not personally taken the photograph, or had not seen the photograph taken, was not grounds for its exclusion.”); State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 , 410 P.3d 226 (“Photographic evidence . . . must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs. 2024See State v. Gallegos, 1977-NMCA-113 , ¶ 26, 91 N.M. 107 , 570 P.2d 938 (“The fact that the witness had not personally taken the photograph, or had not seen the photograph taken, was not grounds for its exclusion.”); State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 , 410 P.3d 226 (“Photographic evidence . . . must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs.	1	1
State v. Rojogreen nm · 1998 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 11 , 127 N.M.686, 986 P.2d 482 (“[W]e defer to the fact finder for the factual determination of conflicting facts[.]”); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC- 001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that the fact-finder “is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts”). {18} As explained above, the machine met the certification requirements, thereby satisfying the foundation standard for admissibility set forth in Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶ 12 . 2017See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 11 , 127 N.M.686, 986 P.2d 482 (“[W]e defer to the fact finder for the factual determination of conflicting facts[.]”); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC- 001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that the fact-finder “is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts”). {18} As explained above, the machine met the certification requirements, thereby satisfying the foundation standard for admissibility set forth in Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶ 12 .	1	1
State v. Salasgreen nmctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 11 , 127 N.M.686, 986 P.2d 482 (“[W]e defer to the fact finder for the factual determination of conflicting facts[.]”); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC- 001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that the fact-finder “is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts”). {18} As explained above, the machine met the certification requirements, thereby satisfying the foundation standard for admissibility set forth in Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶ 12 . 2017See State v. Salas, 1999-NMCA-099, ¶ 11 , 127 N.M.686, 986 P.2d 482 (“[W]e defer to the fact finder for the factual determination of conflicting facts[.]”); see also State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC- 001, ¶ 19, 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that the fact-finder “is free to reject [the d]efendant’s version of the facts”). {18} As explained above, the machine met the certification requirements, thereby satisfying the foundation standard for admissibility set forth in Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶ 12 .	1	1
Reed v. Furr's Supermarkets, Inc.green nmctapp · 2000 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See, e.g., Reed v. Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc., 2000-NMCA-091 , ¶ 35, 129 N.M. 639 , 11 P.3d 603 . 2004See, e.g., Reed v. Furr’s Supermarkets, Inc., 2000-NMCA-091 , ¶ 35, 129 N.M. 639 , 11 P.3d 603 .	1	1
State v. Christiangreen nmctapp · 1995 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998Cf. State v. Christian, 119 N.M. 776, 782-83 , 895 P.2d 676, 682-83 (Ct.App. 1995) (in criminal cases, a confrontation clause satisfied when witness knowledgeable about the testing procedure and manner in which report was complied is available for cross-examination). {11} We also hold that the foundation for test results may be satisfied by adherence to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Metropolitan Courts, Rule 7-607(A)(2) NMRA 1998, which provides: A. Admissibility. 1998Cf. State v. Christian, 119 N.M. 776, 782-83 , 895 P.2d 676, 682-83 (Ct.App. 1995) (in criminal cases, a confrontation clause satisfied when witness knowledgeable about the testing procedure and manner in which report was complied is available for cross-examination). {11} We also hold that the foundation for test results may be satisfied by adherence to the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the Metropolitan Courts, Rule 7-607(A)(2) NMRA 1998, which provides: A. Admissibility.	1	1
People v. Gonzalezgreen calctapp · 1989 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1993–1993 2 sentences 1993See, e.g., People v. Gonzalez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1043 , 259 Cal.Rptr. 846 (1989); People v. Gifford, 782 P.2d 795 , 798 n. 4 (Colo.1989) (en banc); State v. Sakellson, 379 N.W.2d 779 (N.D.1985). 1993See, e.g., People v. Gonzalez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1043 , 259 Cal.Rptr. 846 (1989); People v. Gifford, 782 P.2d 795 , 798 n. 4 (Colo.1989) (en banc); State v. Sakellson, 379 N.W.2d 779 (N.D.1985).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Lopez green nmctapp · 2017 2 sentences 2024See State v. Gallegos, 1977-NMCA-113 , ¶ 26, 91 N.M. 107 , 570 P.2d 938 (“The fact that the witness had not personally taken the photograph, or had not seen the photograph taken, was not grounds for its exclusion.”); State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 , 410 P.3d 226 (“Photographic evidence . . . must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs. 2023“Photographic evidence, a form of demonstrative evidence, must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs.” State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 , 410 P.3d 226 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	2	2023–2024
State v. Lopez green nmctapp · 2017 2 sentences 2024See State v. Gallegos, 1977-NMCA-113 , ¶ 26, 91 N.M. 107 , 570 P.2d 938 (“The fact that the witness had not personally taken the photograph, or had not seen the photograph taken, was not grounds for its exclusion.”); State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 , 410 P.3d 226 (“Photographic evidence . . . must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs. 2023“Photographic evidence, a form of demonstrative evidence, must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs.” State v. Lopez, 2018-NMCA-002, ¶ 31 , 410 P.3d 226 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	2	2023–2024
Kersey v. Hatch green nm · 2010 2 sentences 2017Photographic evidence, a form of demonstrative evidence, "must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs." State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060 , ¶ 53, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 , abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Kersey v. Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020 , ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381 , 237 P.3d 683 . 2017Photographic evidence, a form of demonstrative evidence, "must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs." State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060 , ¶ 53, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 , abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Kersey v. Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020 , ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381 , 237 P.3d 683 .	2	2017–2017
State v. Mora green nm · 1997 2 sentences 2017Photographic evidence, a form of demonstrative evidence, "must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs." State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060 , ¶ 53, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 , abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Kersey v. Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020 , ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381 , 237 P.3d 683 . 2017Photographic evidence, a form of demonstrative evidence, "must fairly and accurately represent the depicted subject in order to satisfy the foundation requirement for authentication of photographs." State v. Mora , 1997-NMSC-060 , ¶ 53, 124 N.M. 346 , 950 P.2d 789 , abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Kersey v. Hatch , 2010-NMSC-020 , ¶ 17, 148 N.M. 381 , 237 P.3d 683 .	2	2017–2017
State v. Marquez green nm · 2009 1 sentence 2010I regard it as no more a part of this case than the foundation for the test, 8 but cannot help but appreciate the irony of such stretching of an evidentiary 9 foundation in our Court to cover the errors attendant to prosecuting what might, with 10 preparation and effort, have been a simple case establishing Defendant’s guilt 11 straightaway, State v. Marquez, 2009-NMSC-055, ¶ 29 , ___ N.M.___, ___ P.3d 12 ___ (Bosson, R., dissenting). 13 ____________________________________ 14 RODERICK T.	1	2010–2010
State v. Smith green nmctapp · 1999 2 sentences 2010Id. ¶ 22. 4 In regard to calibration, the Court in Martinez pointed out that the district court 5 relied on State v. Smith, 1999-NMCA-154, ¶ 11 , 128 N.M. 467 , 994 P.2d 47 , as 6 holding that “an officer [can] testify as to the contents of calibration logs without 7 having first-hand knowledge of the actual calibrations.” Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025 , 8 ¶¶ 3, 21. 2010Id. ¶ 22. 4 In regard to calibration, the Court in Martinez pointed out that the district court 5 relied on State v. Smith, 1999-NMCA-154, ¶ 11 , 128 N.M. 467 , 994 P.2d 47 , as 6 holding that “an officer [can] testify as to the contents of calibration logs without 7 having first-hand knowledge of the actual calibrations.” Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025 , 8 ¶¶ 3, 21.	1	2010–2010
California First Bank v. State green nm · 1990 1 sentence 1996California First Bank, 111 N.M. at 74-75, 801 P.2d at 656-57 .	1	1996–1996
People v. Gifford green colo · 1989 1 sentence 1993See, e.g., People v. Gonzalez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1043 , 259 Cal.Rptr. 846 (1989); People v. Gifford, 782 P.2d 795 , 798 n. 4 (Colo.1989) (en banc); State v. Sakellson, 379 N.W.2d 779 (N.D.1985).	1	1993–1993
State v. Baca green nmctapp · 1974 2 sentences 1993Williams, 114 N.M. at 487 , 840 P.2d at 1253 ; Baca, 87 N.M. at 13 , 528 P.2d at 657 . 1993Williams, 114 N.M. at 487 , 840 P.2d at 1253 ; Baca, 87 N.M. at 13 , 528 P.2d at 657 .	1	1993–1993
State v. Sakellson green nd · 1985 1 sentence 1993See, e.g., People v. Gonzalez, 211 Cal.App.3d 1043 , 259 Cal.Rptr. 846 (1989); People v. Gifford, 782 P.2d 795 , 798 n. 4 (Colo.1989) (en banc); State v. Sakellson, 379 N.W.2d 779 (N.D.1985).	1	1993–1993
State v. Williams green nmctapp · 1992 2 sentences 1993Williams, 114 N.M. at 487 , 840 P.2d at 1253 ; Baca, 87 N.M. at 13 , 528 P.2d at 657 . 1993Williams, 114 N.M. at 487 , 840 P.2d at 1253 ; Baca, 87 N.M. at 13 , 528 P.2d at 657 .	1	1993–1993
Leatherbee v. Leatherbee green mass · 1923 2 sentences 1937Doubtless recitals in an attestation clause are entitled to greater weight, but the logical basis for the presumption, as well as its practical necessity, are the same whether or not there is such a clause." That case affirmed the District Court of Appeals, the opinion of which is reported in 50 P.2d 78 . Page 571 In a similar case it was stated by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Leatherbee v. Leatherbee, 247 Mass. 138 , 141 N.E. 669 , 670 : "There is no statutory provision that an instrument drafted in the similitude of a formal will shall not be set up because the witnesses a 1937Doubtless recitals in an attestation clause are entitled to greater weight, but the logical basis for the presumption, as well as its practical necessity, are the same whether or not there is such a clause." That case affirmed the District Court of Appeals, the opinion of which is reported in 50 P.2d 78 . Page 571 In a similar case it was stated by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Leatherbee v. Leatherbee, 247 Mass. 138 , 141 N.E. 669 , 670 : "There is no statutory provision that an instrument drafted in the similitude of a formal will shall not be set up because the witnesses a	1	1937–1937
Beebe v. Fouse green nm · 1921 2 sentences 1936“No contract * * * need or should be filed * * * which is not the foundation of the action or defense.” Beebe v. Fouse, 27 N.M. 194 , 199 P. 364 ; Laws v. Pyeatt, 40 N.M. 7 , 52 P.(2d) 127; Daughtry v. B. 1936“No contract * * * need or should be filed * * * which is not the foundation of the action or defense.” Beebe v. Fouse, 27 N.M. 194 , 199 P. 364 ; Laws v. Pyeatt, 40 N.M. 7 , 52 P.(2d) 127; Daughtry v. B.	1	1936–1936
Patton v. United States red scotus · 1930 2 sentences 1936Patton v. United States [ 281 U.S. 276 ], 50 S.Ct. 253 , 74 L.Ed. 854 [ 70 A.L.R. 263 ]. 1936Patton v. United States [ 281 U.S. 276 ], 50 S.Ct. 253 , 74 L.Ed. 854 [ 70 A.L.R. 263 ].	1	1936–1936
Laws v. Pyeatt neutral nm · 1935 1 sentence 1936“No contract * * * need or should be filed * * * which is not the foundation of the action or defense.” Beebe v. Fouse, 27 N.M. 194 , 199 P. 364 ; Laws v. Pyeatt, 40 N.M. 7 , 52 P.(2d) 127; Daughtry v. B.	1	1936–1936
Stahl v. Stahl green ill · 1885 1 sentence 1897R. 366, Phegar, J., said: “The necessity of putting some termination to litigation is the foundation of the rule that any issue which is material to the rights of the parties in the matter of suit between them, whether actually contested or not, shall not afterwards be raised in a subsequent suit between the same parties.” In Stahl v. Stahl, 114 Ill. 375 , it is held that, “where a wife procures a divorce from her husband, the court is authorized to make disposition as to the homestead; but, if the court fails to do this, the relation of husband and wife being severed by the decree of divorce,	1	1897–1897
Mott v. Mott green cal · 1890 1 sentence 1897In Patton Loughridge, 49 Iowa 218 , it is decided: “A claim of the husband for property of which he has been defrauded by the-wife will be presumed to have been adjudicated in an action by the wife for divorce, in which a decree allowing alimony was granted; and he can not afterwards maintain an action on the claim against a party by whose alleged instrumentality the fraud was effected.” In Mott v. Mott, 82 Cal. 413 , is the following: “The settlement of property rights is incident to every action for divorce when there is any property involved, and such settlement may be brought in the cross	1	1897–1897
Patton v. Loughridge neutral iowa · 1878 1 sentence 1897In Patton Loughridge, 49 Iowa 218 , it is decided: “A claim of the husband for property of which he has been defrauded by the-wife will be presumed to have been adjudicated in an action by the wife for divorce, in which a decree allowing alimony was granted; and he can not afterwards maintain an action on the claim against a party by whose alleged instrumentality the fraud was effected.” In Mott v. Mott, 82 Cal. 413 , is the following: “The settlement of property rights is incident to every action for divorce when there is any property involved, and such settlement may be brought in the cross	1	1897–1897

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-9-13 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 135 (1884–2026) NY 109 (1839–2025) TX 93 (1858–2025) IL 79 (1873–2025) CT 69 (1878–2024) MO 65 (1876–2022) PA 50 (1842–2026) GA 38 (1900–2025) WA 29 (1908–2025) MD 28 (1905–2019) IA 27 (1864–2019) AL 27 (1882–2013) OH 26 (1837–2023) NC 26 (1880–2026) KY 26 (1880–2014) MA 24 (1866–2019) MT 20 (1885–2012) FL 20 (1931–2024) NJ 19 (1911–2026) IN 18 (1865–2002) MI 17 (1831–2015) NM 17 (1897–2024) KS 17 (1896–2024) OR 16 (1886–2026) MN 16 (1897–2025) AZ 15 (1899–2024) VA 15 (1899–2021) MS 15 (1921–2022) HI 15 (1905–2021) LA 14 (1895–2013) ID 14 (1888–2025) UT 14 (1891–2024) WI 13 (1875–2025) OK 13 (1921–1998) WV 13 (1886–2022) CO 12 (1903–2026) NE 12 (1894–2024) TN 11 (1815–2015) VT 9 (1883–2020) DE 8 (1944–2026) ME 8 (1853–2006) SD 7 (1912–2004) DC 7 (1899–2009) SC 6 (1911–2018) WY 6 (1925–1997) ND 5 (1907–1980) AR 5 (1933–2015) NH 5 (1826–2012) AK 2 (1971–2006) NV 2 (1925–2026) RI 2 (1890–1893)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check