abuse of discretion standard in New Mexico

2021See, e.g., Rule 11-702 NMRA (“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”); see also State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047 , ¶ 43, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 (noting that the first prerequisite for admission of expert testimony “is that the expert be qualified”). {23} We see no reason to apply a different appellate review framework from the

2020Reviewing this claim of error in the admission of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard, see State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047 , ¶ 58, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 , we disagree.

2025“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” State v. Sarracino, 1998- NMSC-022, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 511 , 964 P.2d 72 (citation omitted). 3.

2025“We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” State v. Sarracino, 1998- NMSC-022, ¶ 20, 125 N.M. 511 , 964 P.2d 72 (citation omitted). 3.

2021See, e.g., Rule 11-702 NMRA (“A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.”); see also State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047 , ¶ 43, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 (noting that the first prerequisite for admission of expert testimony “is that the expert be qualified”). {23} We see no reason to apply a different appellate review framework from the

2020Reviewing this claim of error in the admission of expert testimony under an abuse of discretion standard, see State v. Alberico, 1993-NMSC-047 , ¶ 58, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 , we disagree.

2025See State v. Green, 2015-NMCA-007, ¶ 22 , 341 P.3d 10 (holding that this Court reviews a district court’s decision to revoke probation under an abuse of discretion standard and that, to establish an abuse of discretion, it must appear that the district court acted unfairly or arbitrarily, or committed manifest error). {6} Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {7} IT IS SO ORDERED.

2023Having considered the brief in chief, concluding the briefing submitted to the Court provides no possibility for reversal, and determining that the case is appropriate for resolution on Track 1 as defined in that order, we affirm for the following reasons. {2} Defendant appeals the district court’s decision, following his probation violation and revocation, to require that Defendant serve the full ten months remaining in his sentence without the opportunity to earn good time credit. [BIC 1] “We review [the district] court’s decision to revoke probation under an abuse of discretion standard.” S

2019Corp., 10 1 2005-NMCA-045, 14 , 137 N.M. 339 , 110 P.3d 1076 (declining to entertain a 2 cursory and inadequately undeveloped argument). 3 {22} “A [district court’s] denial of a defendant’s discovery requests will be 4 reviewed according to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Bobbin, 1985- 5 NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 103 N.M. 375 , 707 P.2d 1185 .

2019Corp., 10 1 2005-NMCA-045, 14 , 137 N.M. 339 , 110 P.3d 1076 (declining to entertain a 2 cursory and inadequately undeveloped argument). 3 {22} “A [district court’s] denial of a defendant’s discovery requests will be 4 reviewed according to an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Bobbin, 1985- 5 NMCA-089, ¶ 7, 103 N.M. 375 , 707 P.2d 1185 .

2016State v. Martinez, 6 1989-NMCA-036 , ¶ 5, 108 N.M. 604 , 775 P.2d 1321 (“We review the trial court’s 7 decision to revoke probation under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2016State v. Martinez, 6 1989-NMCA-036 , ¶ 5, 108 N.M. 604 , 775 P.2d 1321 (“We review the trial court’s 7 decision to revoke probation under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2013“An abuse of discretion standard of review, however, is not tantamount to rubber-stamping the trial judge’s decision,” and we are not prevented from conducting a meaningful analysis of the admission of the expert testimony “to ensure that the trial judge’s decision was in accordance with the Rules of Evidence and the evidence in the case.” Alberico, 116 N.M. at 170, 861 P.2d at 206; see Torres, 1999-NMSC-010 , ¶ 27.

2013“An abuse of discretion standard of review, however, is not tantamount to rubber- stamping the trial judge’s decision,” and we are not prevented from conducting a meaningful analysis of the admission of the expert testimony “to ensure that the trial judge’s decision was in accordance with the Rules of Evidence and the evidence in the case.” Alberico, 116 N.M. at 170, 861 P.2d at 206; see Torres, 1999-NMSC-010 , ¶ 27.

2019See State v. Gardner, 2003- 7 NMCA-107, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 294 , 76 P.3d 47 (explaining that challenges for cause are 8 reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); Otto, 2007-NMSC-012 , ¶ 9 9 (explaining that evidentiary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion); State v. 10 Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 23 , 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that review of a trial 11 court’s decision to admit evidence that did not comply with notice and disclosure 12 requirements is for abuse of discretion); State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 13 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (reviewing ruling on admissibility of pr

2019See State v. Gardner, 2003- 7 NMCA-107, ¶ 16, 134 N.M. 294 , 76 P.3d 47 (explaining that challenges for cause are 8 reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard); Otto, 2007-NMSC-012 , ¶ 9 9 (explaining that evidentiary decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion); State v. 10 Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 23 , 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that review of a trial 11 court’s decision to admit evidence that did not comply with notice and disclosure 12 requirements is for abuse of discretion); State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 13 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (reviewing ruling on admissibility of pr

2025It was, therefore, an abuse of discretion and error for the district court to conclude otherwise. 2 See Almanzar, 2014-NMSC-001, ¶ 9 (stating that appellate courts “review[] factual matters with deference to the district court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them”); State v. Salazar, 2007-NMSC-004, ¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 148 , 152 P.3d 135 (explaining that “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.”); see also State v. Patterson, 2017-NMCA- 045, ¶ 11, 395 P.3d 543 (“A court abuses its discre

2025It was, therefore, an abuse of discretion and error for the district court to conclude otherwise. 2 See Almanzar, 2014-NMSC-001, ¶ 9 (stating that appellate courts “review[] factual matters with deference to the district court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them”); State v. Salazar, 2007-NMSC-004, ¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 148 , 152 P.3d 135 (explaining that “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.”); see also State v. Patterson, 2017-NMCA- 045, ¶ 11, 395 P.3d 543 (“A court abuses its discre

2019See, e.g., State v. Desnoyers, 2002-NMSC-031, ¶ 25 , 132 N.M. 756 , 55 P.3d 968 (“The granting or denial of discovery in a criminal case is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the [district] court which we review under an abuse of discretion standard.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 6 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 .

2019See, e.g., State v. Desnoyers, 2002-NMSC-031, ¶ 25 , 132 N.M. 756 , 55 P.3d 968 (“The granting or denial of discovery in a criminal case is a matter peculiarly within the discretion of the [district] court which we review under an abuse of discretion standard.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by State v. Forbes, 2005-NMSC-027, ¶ 6 , 138 N.M. 264 , 119 P.3d 144 .

2025SW Research contends that this evidence is relevant to the 5 decision to allow the construction of the fifth shaft because it would expose 6 Permittees’ ulterior motive for the modification of the ventilation system. 7 {27} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence [in an administrative 8 proceeding], we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the 9 application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment, but 10 we apply a de novo standard to review any interpretations of law underlying the 11 evidentiary ruling.” Dewitt v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc

2025SW Research contends that this evidence is relevant to the 5 decision to allow the construction of the fifth shaft because it would expose 6 Permittees’ ulterior motive for the modification of the ventilation system. 7 {27} “With respect to the admission or exclusion of evidence [in an administrative 8 proceeding], we generally apply an abuse of discretion standard where the 9 application of an evidentiary rule involves an exercise of discretion or judgment, but 10 we apply a de novo standard to review any interpretations of law underlying the 11 evidentiary ruling.” Dewitt v. Rent-A-Ctr., Inc

2025See State v. Johnson, 2010-NMSC-016, ¶ 49 , 148 N.M. 50 , 229 P.3d 523 (“A denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2025See State v. Johnson, 2010-NMSC-016, ¶ 49 , 148 N.M. 50 , 229 P.3d 523 (“A denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.”).

2010Accordingly, “[w]e review a trial court’s denial of a motion for 19 mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Gallegos, 2009-NMSC- 20 017, ¶ 21, 146 N.M. 88 , 206 P.3d 993 (internal quotation marks and citation 21 1 omitted). 2 {33} Regarding curative instructions, “[t]he jury is presumed to follow the court’s 3 instructions[,]” State v. Gonzales, 113 N.M. 221, 230 , 824 P.2d 1023, 1032 (1992), 4 and “[t]he overwhelming New Mexico case law states that the prompt sustaining of 5 the objection and an admonition to disregard the answer cures any prejudicial 6 effect of inadmissibl

2009The trial judge excused the juror for cause, and Defendant requested a mistrial based on the juror’s “highly unusual interruption and high-profile replacement.” {21} “ “We review a trial court’s denial of a motion for mistrial under an abuse of discretion standard.’ ” State v. Fry, 2006-NMSC-001, ¶ 52 , 138 N.M. 700 , 126 P.3d 516 (quoting State v. Gonzales, 2000-NMSC-028 , ¶ 35, 129 N.M. 556 , 11 P.3d 131 ).

2005To reverse the trial court under an abuse-of-discretion standard, “it must be shown that the court’s ruling exceeds the bounds of all reason ... or that the judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶29 , 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (omission in original); see also Talley v. Talley, 115 N.M. 89, 92 , 847 P.2d 323, 326 (Ct.App.1993) (“When there exist reasons both supporting and detracting from a trial court decision, there is no abuse of discretion.”). ‘Where the court’s discretion is fact-

2005To reverse the trial court under an abuse-of-discretion standard, “it must be shown that the court’s ruling exceeds the bounds of all reason ... or that the judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable.” Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶29 , 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (omission in original); see also Talley v. Talley, 115 N.M. 89, 92 , 847 P.2d 323, 326 (Ct.App.1993) (“When there exist reasons both supporting and detracting from a trial court decision, there is no abuse of discretion.”). ‘Where the court’s discretion is fact-

2022But see State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA-107, ¶ 39 , 134 N.M. 294 , 76 P.3d 47 (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decide whether the court’s consideration of uncharged conduct at sentencing violated due process). {10} While Defendant contends he “preserved arguments related to the general propriety of [his] sentence,” he acknowledges that he did not object on the due process grounds he now raises on appeal.

2022But see State v. Gardner, 2003-NMCA-107, ¶ 39 , 134 N.M. 294 , 76 P.3d 47 (applying the abuse of discretion standard to decide whether the court’s consideration of uncharged conduct at sentencing violated due process). {10} While Defendant contends he “preserved arguments related to the general propriety of [his] sentence,” he acknowledges that he did not object on the due process grounds he now raises on appeal.

2020“An abuse of discretion standard of review, however, is not tantamount to rubber- stamping the trial judge’s decision.” State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 24 , 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020“An abuse of discretion standard of review, however, is not tantamount to rubber- stamping the trial judge’s decision.” State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 24 , 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2016Edens v. Edens, 2005-NMCA-033, ¶ 13 , 137 N.M. 207 , 109 P.3d 295 17 (holding that to reverse the district court under an abuse of discretion standard “it 18 must be shown that the court’s ruling exceeds the bounds of all reason or that the 19 judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable” (omission, internal 20 quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2016Edens v. Edens, 2005-NMCA-033, ¶ 13 , 137 N.M. 207 , 109 P.3d 295 17 (holding that to reverse the district court under an abuse of discretion standard “it 18 must be shown that the court’s ruling exceeds the bounds of all reason or that the 19 judicial action taken is arbitrary, fanciful, or unreasonable” (omission, internal 20 quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2025Though Defendant does not attempt to identify the appropriate standard of review, see Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA, “we review the [district] court’s decision to exclude . . . evidence under the abuse of discretion standard,” see State v. Apodaca, 1994-NMSC-121 , ¶ 35, 118 N.M. 762 , 887 P.2d 756 . {3} At trial, Defendant sought to testify that the age of consent for sexual intercourse is sixteen.

2025Though Defendant does not attempt to identify the appropriate standard of review, see Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA, “we review the [district] court’s decision to exclude . . . evidence under the abuse of discretion standard,” see State v. Apodaca, 1994-NMSC-121 , ¶ 35, 118 N.M. 762 , 887 P.2d 756 . {3} At trial, Defendant sought to testify that the age of consent for sexual intercourse is sixteen.

2025See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 26 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 (“Where error is preserved at trial, an appellate court will review under an abuse of discretion standard.”); see also id. ¶ 35 (“Fundamental error occurs when prosecutorial misconduct in closing statements compromises a defendant’s right to a fair trial, and we will reverse a conviction despite defense counsel’s failure to object.”).

2025See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 26 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 (“Where error is preserved at trial, an appellate court will review under an abuse of discretion standard.”); see also id. ¶ 35 (“Fundamental error occurs when prosecutorial misconduct in closing statements compromises a defendant’s right to a fair trial, and we will reverse a conviction despite defense counsel’s failure to object.”).

2023Now having considered the brief in chief and answer brief, we affirm for the following reasons. {2} Defendant appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for mistrial. [BIC 9] “A denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 68 , 279 P.3d 747 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); id. (“An abuse of discretion occurs when the ruling is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {3} The briefs indicate the following events

2023Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the plea agreement. {6} Defendant also contends that the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. [BIC 10] “A denial of a motion for mistrial is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 68 , 279 P.3d 747 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).