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.
17 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 3 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. Parishgreen2 sentences2017The district court’s misstatement of the essential mens rea element is 7 reversible error requiring a new trial 8 {26} “[I]f an instruction is facially erroneous it presents an incurable problem and 9 mandates reversal.” State v. Parish, 1994-NMSC-073 , ¶ 4, 118 N.M. 39 , 878 P.2d 10 988 ; see also State v. Ellis, 2008-NMSC-032, ¶ 14 , 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (“A 11 jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential 12 for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” (internal 13 quotation marks and citations omitted)). 14 {27} Ou 2017The district court’s misstatement of the essential mens rea element is reversible error requiring a new trial {26} “[I]f an instruction is facially erroneous it presents an incurable problem and mandates reversal.” State v. Parish, 1994-NMSC-073 , ¶ 4, 118 N.M. 39 , 878 P.2d 988 ; see also State v. Ellis, 2008-NMSC-032, ¶ 14 , 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (“A jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). {27} Our rules require lawye | 6 | 9 |
State v. Ellisgreen2 sentences2025As we discuss, Defendant’s position relies on the false premise that the jury instructions, without his submitted instruction expressly articulating the doctrine of imperfect self-defense, constituted an inadequate statement of law, resulting in “jury confusion.” {14} “A jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Ellis, 2008-NMSC-032, ¶ 14 , 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025As we discuss, Defendant’s position relies on the false premise that the jury instructions, without his submitted instruction expressly articulating the doctrine of imperfect self-defense, constituted an inadequate statement of law, resulting in “jury confusion.” {14} “A jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Ellis, 2008-NMSC-032, ¶ 14 , 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 5 | 7 |
State v. Fostergreen2 sentences2012We agree with Defendant that the instruction 19 given constitutes reversible error because attempt is a specific intent crime, see State 16 1 v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 51 , 124 N.M. 333 , 950 P.2d 776 , and because “[a] jury 2 instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a 3 conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Ellis, 2008- 4 NMSC-032, ¶ 14, 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (internal quotation marks and citation 5 omitted); see State v. Foster, 87 N.M. 155, 159 , 530 P.2d 949, 953 (Ct. App. 1974) 6 (reversing an attempt 2012We agree with Defendant that the instruction 19 given constitutes reversible error because attempt is a specific intent crime, see State 16 1 v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 51 , 124 N.M. 333 , 950 P.2d 776 , and because “[a] jury 2 instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a 3 conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Ellis, 2008- 4 NMSC-032, ¶ 14, 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (internal quotation marks and citation 5 omitted); see State v. Foster, 87 N.M. 155, 159 , 530 P.2d 949, 953 (Ct. App. 1974) 6 (reversing an attempt | 1 | 1 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 10 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 ; see also Parish, 118 N.M. at 44 , 878 P.2d at 993 (“A jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2007See Griffin, 2002-NMCA-051, ¶ 10 , 132 N.M. 195 , 46 P.3d 102 ; see also Parish, 118 N.M. at 44 , 878 P.2d at 993 (“A jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Santillanes v. Stategreen2 sentences2005In negligent child abuse prosecution, the jury must be instructed that the state bears the burden to prove that the defendant was “criminally] negligent,” meaning that “defendant knew or should have known of the danger involved and acted with a reckless disregard for the safety or health of the child.” Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 222 , 849 P.2d 358, 365 (1993). 2005In negligent child abuse prosecution, the jury must be instructed that the state bears the burden to prove that the defendant was “criminally] negligent,” meaning that “defendant knew or should have known of the danger involved and acted with a reckless disregard for the safety or health of the child.” Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 222 , 849 P.2d 358, 365 (1993). | 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. Dowling
green
2 sentences2020In short, “[a] jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Dowling, 2011- NMSC-016, ¶ 14, 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {24} Defendant’s conviction of escape from custody of a peace officer indeed followed from such a reversible error: the jury instruction associated with the conviction did not instruct the jury on one element essential to the crime. 2020In short, “[a] jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Dowling, 2011- NMSC-016, ¶ 14, 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {24} Defendant’s conviction of escape from custody of a peace officer indeed followed from such a reversible error: the jury instruction associated with the conviction did not instruct the jury on one element essential to the crime. | 2 | 2012–2020 |
State v. Cabezuela
green
2 sentences2020Section 30-22-10 provides that such escape “consists of any person who shall have been placed under lawful arrest for the commission or alleged commission of any felony, unlawfully escaping or attempting to escape from the custody or control of any peace officer.” The statute plainly includes the element of “arrest for the commission or alleged commission of any felony[.]” See State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 38 , 150 N.M. 654 , 265 P.3d 705 (“The language of a statute determines the essential elements of an offense.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {25} The jury instruct 2020Section 30-22-10 provides that such escape “consists of any person who shall have been placed under lawful arrest for the commission or alleged commission of any felony, unlawfully escaping or attempting to escape from the custody or control of any peace officer.” The statute plainly includes the element of “arrest for the commission or alleged commission of any felony[.]” See State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 38 , 150 N.M. 654 , 265 P.3d 705 (“The language of a statute determines the essential elements of an offense.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {25} The jury instruct | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Osborne
green
1 sentence2018“A jury instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law 5 essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” Id. 6 In State v. Osborne, the Supreme Court held “that unlawfulness is an essential element 7 of the offense of CSCM as defined by our [L]egislature.” 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶ 16, 111 8 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 ; see Section 30-9-13(A) (providing that “[c]riminal sexual 9 contact of a minor is the unlawful and intentional touching of or applying force to the 10 intimate parts of a minor or the unlawful and intentional causing of a minor t | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Baca
green
2 sentences2012We agree with Defendant that the instruction 19 given constitutes reversible error because attempt is a specific intent crime, see State 16 1 v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 51 , 124 N.M. 333 , 950 P.2d 776 , and because “[a] jury 2 instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a 3 conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Ellis, 2008- 4 NMSC-032, ¶ 14, 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (internal quotation marks and citation 5 omitted); see State v. Foster, 87 N.M. 155, 159 , 530 P.2d 949, 953 (Ct. App. 1974) 6 (reversing an attempt 2012We agree with Defendant that the instruction 19 given constitutes reversible error because attempt is a specific intent crime, see State 16 1 v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059, ¶ 51 , 124 N.M. 333 , 950 P.2d 776 , and because “[a] jury 2 instruction which does not instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a 3 conviction of any crime submitted to the jury is reversible error.” State v. Ellis, 2008- 4 NMSC-032, ¶ 14, 144 N.M. 253 , 186 P.3d 245 (internal quotation marks and citation 5 omitted); see State v. Foster, 87 N.M. 155, 159 , 530 P.2d 949, 953 (Ct. App. 1974) 6 (reversing an attempt | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2008“The trial court’s rejection of [d]efendant’s submitted jury instructions is reviewed by this Court de novo, because it is closer to a determination of law than a determination of fact.” State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044, ¶ 5 , 126 N.M. 552 , 972 P.2d 1143 . {15} However, “a self-defense instruction is required whenever [or if] a defendant presents evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense.” State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (quoted authority omitted). 2008“The trial court’s rejection of [d]efendant’s submitted jury instructions is reviewed by this Court de novo, because it is closer to a determination of law than a determination of fact.” State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044, ¶ 5 , 126 N.M. 552 , 972 P.2d 1143 . {15} However, “a self-defense instruction is required whenever [or if] a defendant presents evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense.” State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (quoted authority omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Lucero
green
2 sentences2008“The trial court’s rejection of [d]efendant’s submitted jury instructions is reviewed by this Court de novo, because it is closer to a determination of law than a determination of fact.” State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044, ¶ 5 , 126 N.M. 552 , 972 P.2d 1143 . {15} However, “a self-defense instruction is required whenever [or if] a defendant presents evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense.” State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (quoted authority omitted). 2008“The trial court’s rejection of [d]efendant’s submitted jury instructions is reviewed by this Court de novo, because it is closer to a determination of law than a determination of fact.” State v. Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044, ¶ 5 , 126 N.M. 552 , 972 P.2d 1143 . {15} However, “a self-defense instruction is required whenever [or if] a defendant presents evidence sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense.” State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (quoted authority omitted). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Sosa
green
2 sentences2005State v. Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 25 , 123 N.M. 564 , 943 P.2d 1017 (holding that the use of an ambiguous instruction that confuses or misleads a jury is reversible error). 2005State v. Sosa, 1997-NMSC-032, ¶ 25 , 123 N.M. 564 , 943 P.2d 1017 (holding that the use of an ambiguous instruction that confuses or misleads a jury is reversible error). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.