15 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1891–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Giles v. Californiagreen2 sentences2020Relevant law regarding the common law-based form of the forfeiture exception {15} The United States Supreme Court first recognized the forfeiture exception in 1878 in Reynolds. 98 U.S. 145 ; see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 366 (“This Court first addressed forfeiture in Reynolds.”). 2020People v. Giles, 152 P.3d 433 , 445- 47 (2007), vacated by Giles, 554 U.S. at 377 . {18} The United States Supreme Court vacated the California Supreme Court’s ruling, concluding that the California Supreme Court improperly construed the forfeiture exception. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Alvarez-Lopezgreen2 sentences2020See Maestas, 2018-NMSC-010 ; State v. Romero, 2007-NMSC- 013, 141 N.M. 403 , 156 P.3d 694 ; State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 . {21} This Court first encountered the forfeiture exception in Alvarez-Lopez in 2004, four years prior to Giles. 2020See Maestas, 2018-NMSC-010 ; State v. Romero, 2007-NMSC- 013, 141 N.M. 403 , 156 P.3d 694 ; State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 . {21} This Court first encountered the forfeiture exception in Alvarez-Lopez in 2004, four years prior to Giles. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Romerogreen2 sentences2020See Maestas, 2018-NMSC-010 ; State v. Romero, 2007-NMSC- 013, 141 N.M. 403 , 156 P.3d 694 ; State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 . {21} This Court first encountered the forfeiture exception in Alvarez-Lopez in 2004, four years prior to Giles. 2020See Maestas, 2018-NMSC-010 ; State v. Romero, 2007-NMSC- 013, 141 N.M. 403 , 156 P.3d 694 ; State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 . {21} This Court first encountered the forfeiture exception in Alvarez-Lopez in 2004, four years prior to Giles. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Gilesgreen2 sentences2020People v. Giles, 152 P.3d 433 , 445- 47 (2007), vacated by Giles, 554 U.S. at 377 . {18} The United States Supreme Court vacated the California Supreme Court’s ruling, concluding that the California Supreme Court improperly construed the forfeiture exception. 2007See, e.g., People *704 v. Giles, 40 Cal.4th 833, 837, 841-43 , 55 Cal. Rptr.3d 133, 135, 138-39 , 152 P.3d 433, 435, 438-39 , (Cal. 2007); United States v. Martinez, 476 F.3d 961, 966-67 (D.C.Cir. 2007); State v. Jensen, 727 N.W.2d 518, 533-537 (Wis.2007). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2018Cf. People v. Burns , 494 Mich. 104 , 832 N.W.2d 738 , 745 (2013) (overturning a trial court's admission of victim's statements under the forfeiture exception while noting that the timing of wrongdoing is important and wrongdoing conducted after the filing of criminal charges may give rise to stronger inference of causation). {42} In this case, the nature of the relationship between Barela and Defendant may have supported an inference of causation. 2018Cf. People v. Burns , 494 Mich. 104 , 832 N.W.2d 738 , 745 (2013) (overturning a trial court's admission of victim's statements under the forfeiture exception while noting that the timing of wrongdoing is important and wrongdoing conducted after the filing of criminal charges may give rise to stronger inference of causation). {42} In this case, the nature of the relationship between Barela and Defendant may have supported an inference of causation. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Farringtongreen2 sentences2024See State v. Farrington, 2020-NMSC-022, ¶ 13 , 476 P.3d 1231 (recognizing the forfeiture rule as “both an exception to confrontation rights and a codified evidentiary exception to the rule against hearsay” (emphasis omitted)). 2024See State v. Farrington, 2020-NMSC-022, ¶ 13 , 476 P.3d 1231 (recognizing the forfeiture rule as “both an exception to confrontation rights and a codified evidentiary exception to the rule against hearsay” (emphasis omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Crawford v. Washingtongreen1 sentence2020FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING {13} The forfeiture exception has historically served as a common law doctrine that “extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.” Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2020See State v. Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶¶ 18-19, 21 , 141 N.M. 713 , 160 P.3d 894 . 2020See State v. Martinez, 2007-NMSC-025, ¶¶ 18-19, 21 , 141 N.M. 713 , 160 P.3d 894 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2020See State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 45 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 (presuming a rule of evidence follows its common law roots). {30} Second, Rule 11-804(B)(5) is taken verbatim from federal Rule 804(b)(6). 2020See State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 45 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 (presuming a rule of evidence follows its common law roots). {30} Second, Rule 11-804(B)(5) is taken verbatim from federal Rule 804(b)(6). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Stategreen1 sentence2020People v. Burns, 832 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Mich. 2013); see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 376 ; Roberts v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1018, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3, ¶¶ 23-28 , 331 Wis. 2d 440 , 794 N.W.2d 482 ; Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 10 , 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008). {28} Rule 11-804(B)(5) provides that “[a] statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused—or acquiesced in wrongfully causing—the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result” is “not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness.” We co | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hallumgreen1 sentence2018See United States v. Jonassen , 759 F.3d 653 , 662 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Hallum , 606 N.W.2d at 356 ("Misconduct sufficient to give rise to a forfeiture is not limited to the use of threats, force or intimidation."); accord United States v. Mayes , 512 F.2d 637 , 650-51 (6th Cir. 1975) (finding wrongful conduct where counsel invoked witness's Fifth Amendment privilege for defendant's protection). {34} The weight of the case law both here and elsewhere is thus clear: wrongdoing, for purposes of application of the forfeiture exception, need not take the form of an overt threat of harm. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 326121green1 sentence2018See United States v. Jonassen , 759 F.3d 653 , 662 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Hallum , 606 N.W.2d at 356 ("Misconduct sufficient to give rise to a forfeiture is not limited to the use of threats, force or intimidation."); accord United States v. Mayes , 512 F.2d 637 , 650-51 (6th Cir. 1975) (finding wrongful conduct where counsel invoked witness's Fifth Amendment privilege for defendant's protection). {34} The weight of the case law both here and elsewhere is thus clear: wrongdoing, for purposes of application of the forfeiture exception, need not take the form of an overt threat of harm. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Martin Jonassengreen1 sentence2018See United States v. Jonassen , 759 F.3d 653 , 662 (7th Cir. 2014) ; Hallum , 606 N.W.2d at 356 ("Misconduct sufficient to give rise to a forfeiture is not limited to the use of threats, force or intimidation."); accord United States v. Mayes , 512 F.2d 637 , 650-51 (6th Cir. 1975) (finding wrongful conduct where counsel invoked witness's Fifth Amendment privilege for defendant's protection). {34} The weight of the case law both here and elsewhere is thus clear: wrongdoing, for purposes of application of the forfeiture exception, need not take the form of an overt threat of harm. | 1 | 1 |
Davies v. Boydgreen2 sentences2009See Davies, 73 N.M. at 90 , 385 P.2d at 953 (Moise, J., specially concurring) (“ ‘A forfeiture from its nature implies the taking away from one of some pre-existing right, and this the courts will never do unless the equities of the situation are such there is no way to avoid it.’ ” (quoting Hogg v. Forsythe, 198 Ky. 462 , 248 S.W. 1008, 1011 (1923))). 2009See Davies, 73 N.M. at 90 , 385 P.2d at 953 (Moise, J., specially concurring) (“ ‘A forfeiture from its nature implies the taking away from one of some pre-existing right, and this the courts will never do unless the equities of the situation are such there is no way to avoid it.’ ” (quoting Hogg v. Forsythe, 198 Ky. 462 , 248 S.W. 1008, 1011 (1923))). | 1 | 1 |
Herrera v. Herreragreen2 sentences2009See Herrera v. Herrera, 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 705 , 974 P.2d 675 (holding that marital settlement agreements are contracts, subject to contract law). 2009See Herrera v. Herrera, 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 705 , 974 P.2d 675 (holding that marital settlement agreements are contracts, subject to contract law). | 1 | 1 |
Steele v. Branchgreen1 sentence2009In such instances, rather than require strict compliance, courts have held that if the defaulting party substantially performed with reasonable diligence and in good faith, and “the other party has suffered no damage by the delay, and particularly if the property has not materially enhanced in value during the time of the delay, a Court of Equity will not enforce the forfeiture.” Steele v. Branch, 40 Cal. 3, 11 (1870). | 1 | 1 |
Andrew v. Forsythegreen2 sentences2009See Davies, 73 N.M. at 90 , 385 P.2d at 953 (Moise, J., specially concurring) (“ ‘A forfeiture from its nature implies the taking away from one of some pre-existing right, and this the courts will never do unless the equities of the situation are such there is no way to avoid it.’ ” (quoting Hogg v. Forsythe, 198 Ky. 462 , 248 S.W. 1008, 1011 (1923))). 2009See Davies, 73 N.M. at 90 , 385 P.2d at 953 (Moise, J., specially concurring) (“ ‘A forfeiture from its nature implies the taking away from one of some pre-existing right, and this the courts will never do unless the equities of the situation are such there is no way to avoid it.’ ” (quoting Hogg v. Forsythe, 198 Ky. 462 , 248 S.W. 1008, 1011 (1923))). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. City of Santa Fegreen2 sentences2009See Thomas, 112 N.M. at 461 , 816 P.2d at 530 . {15} Although the contractual language itself is significant, we begin our analysis by examining the nature of the parties’ bargain as a means to provide context for their language. 2009See Thomas, 112 N.M. at 461 , 816 P.2d at 530 . {15} Although the contractual language itself is significant, we begin our analysis by examining the nature of the parties’ bargain as a means to provide context for their language. | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Sheldon Hanselgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Martinez, Williamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Barrettgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jensengreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pearsongreen1 sentence2007Id. at 45; see also Pearson, 858 S.W.2d at 886 -87 & n. 8 (adopting the waiver approach and providing examples of why a defendant might wish to affirmatively waive the defense). {18} Based on our review of the various approaches, we hereby adopt the waiver approach and hold that the statute of limitations is a substantive right that may only be waived by a defendant after consultation with counsel, and only if the waiver is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. {19} We reject the forfeiture rule for two fundamental reasons. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Gwinngreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Timoteogreen1 sentence2007We conclude that “the protection of the statute of limitations is too important to be unintentionally lost.” Timoteo, 952 P.2d at 878 (Ramil, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
Byrd v. Stategreen1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. Hansel, 70 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam); Byrd v. State, 754 So.2d 191, 192 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000) (per curiam); People v. Gwinn, 255 Ill.App.3d 628 , 194 Ill.Dec. 362 , 627 N.E.2d 699, 701-02 (1994); People v. Brocksmith, 237 Ill.App.3d 818 , 178 Ill.Dec. 536 , 604 N.E.2d 1059, 1065-66 (1992); Commonwealth v. Barrett, 418 Mass. 788 , 641 N.E.2d 1302, 1306, 1308 (1994); State v. Wiemer, 3 Neb. | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Brocksmithgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Commonwealth v. Edwardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Houlihangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Wrightgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Severo Garcia-Mezagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gonzalez v. Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Saier v. Saiergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gilesgreen2 sentences2020People v. Giles, 152 P.3d 433 , 445- 47 (2007), vacated by Giles, 554 U.S. at 377 . {18} The United States Supreme Court vacated the California Supreme Court’s ruling, concluding that the California Supreme Court improperly construed the forfeiture exception. 2007See, e.g., People *704 v. Giles, 40 Cal.4th 833, 837, 841-43 , 55 Cal. Rptr.3d 133, 135, 138-39 , 152 P.3d 433, 435, 438-39 , (Cal. 2007); United States v. Martinez, 476 F.3d 961, 966-67 (D.C.Cir. 2007); State v. Jensen, 727 N.W.2d 518, 533-537 (Wis.2007). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Davis v. Washington
green
2 sentences2018Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813 , 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2018Id. ¶ 29 (quoting Davis v. Washington , 547 U.S. 813 , 833, 126 S.Ct. 2266 , 165 L.Ed.2d 224 (2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2007–2018 |
State v. Rojo
green
2 sentences2024We first consider de novo whether any of the challenged statements implicate Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, see State v. Tsosie, 2022-NMSC-017 , ¶¶ 22-23, 516 P.3d 1116 , and otherwise review the district court’s ruling on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 . {25} “The United States Supreme Court has long held a [d]efendant’s right to confrontation may be forfeited by his own wrongdoing . . . [because] the law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong.” State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2024We first consider de novo whether any of the challenged statements implicate Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, see State v. Tsosie, 2022-NMSC-017 , ¶¶ 22-23, 516 P.3d 1116 , and otherwise review the district court’s ruling on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 . {25} “The United States Supreme Court has long held a [d]efendant’s right to confrontation may be forfeited by his own wrongdoing . . . [because] the law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong.” State v. Alvarez-Lopez, | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Tsosie
green
1 sentence2024We first consider de novo whether any of the challenged statements implicate Defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation, see State v. Tsosie, 2022-NMSC-017 , ¶¶ 22-23, 516 P.3d 1116 , and otherwise review the district court’s ruling on a motion in limine for an abuse of discretion, see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 . {25} “The United States Supreme Court has long held a [d]efendant’s right to confrontation may be forfeited by his own wrongdoing . . . [because] the law will not allow a person to take advantage of his own wrong.” State v. Alvarez-Lopez, | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Reynolds v. United States
green
2 sentences2020Relevant law regarding the common law-based form of the forfeiture exception {15} The United States Supreme Court first recognized the forfeiture exception in 1878 in Reynolds. 98 U.S. 145 ; see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 366 (“This Court first addressed forfeiture in Reynolds.”). 2020The Reynolds Court relied on English forfeiture case law dating back to 1666 to hold that the “Constitution gives the accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against him; but if a witness is absent by his own wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away.” Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 158 . {16} Well over a century later, in 2008, the United States Supreme Court decided Giles v. California, which remains the Court’s most recent exposition on the forfeiture exception. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Jensen
green
2 sentences2020People v. Burns, 832 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Mich. 2013); see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 376 ; Roberts v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1018, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3, ¶¶ 23-28 , 331 Wis. 2d 440 , 794 N.W.2d 482 ; Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 10 , 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008). {28} Rule 11-804(B)(5) provides that “[a] statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused—or acquiesced in wrongfully causing—the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result” is “not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness.” We co 2020People v. Burns, 832 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Mich. 2013); see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 376 ; Roberts v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1018, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3, ¶¶ 23-28 , 331 Wis. 2d 440 , 794 N.W.2d 482 ; Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 10 , 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008). {28} Rule 11-804(B)(5) provides that “[a] statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused—or acquiesced in wrongfully causing—the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result” is “not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness.” We co | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Proffit v. State
green
2 sentences2020People v. Burns, 832 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Mich. 2013); see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 376 ; Roberts v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1018, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3, ¶¶ 23-28 , 331 Wis. 2d 440 , 794 N.W.2d 482 ; Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 10 , 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008). {28} Rule 11-804(B)(5) provides that “[a] statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused—or acquiesced in wrongfully causing—the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result” is “not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness.” We co 2020People v. Burns, 832 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Mich. 2013); see also Giles, 554 U.S. at 376 ; Roberts v. State, 894 N.E.2d 1018, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008); State v. Jensen, 2011 WI App 3, ¶¶ 23-28 , 331 Wis. 2d 440 , 794 N.W.2d 482 ; Proffit v. State, 2008 WY 102, ¶ 10 , 191 P.3d 963 (Wyo. 2008). {28} Rule 11-804(B)(5) provides that “[a] statement offered against a party that wrongfully caused—or acquiesced in wrongfully causing—the declarant’s unavailability as a witness, and did so intending that result” is “not excluded by the rule against hearsay if the declarant is unavailable as a witness.” We co | 1 | 2020–2020 |
United States v. Steven David Montague
green
1 sentence2018Giles , 554 U.S. at 377 , 128 S.Ct. 2678 ; Montague , 421 F.3d at 1103 -04 . | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Stamm v. Buchanan
green
2 sentences2009Id. at 135 , 227 P.2d at 638 ; see also Thomas, 112 N.M. at 460-61 , 816 P.2d at 529-30 (denying partial reversion under equitable preference for avoiding forfeitures because the deed did not contain explicit language permitting divisibility or partial forfeiture). {25} These cases indicate that contractual silence is problematic when forfeitures are sought because the contracts necessarily lack the specificity required to be confident that a forfeiture is enforceable. 2009Id. at 135 , 227 P.2d at 638 ; see also Thomas, 112 N.M. at 460-61 , 816 P.2d at 529-30 (denying partial reversion under equitable preference for avoiding forfeitures because the deed did not contain explicit language permitting divisibility or partial forfeiture). {25} These cases indicate that contractual silence is problematic when forfeitures are sought because the contracts necessarily lack the specificity required to be confident that a forfeiture is enforceable. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Wiemer
green
1 sentence2007See, e.g., United States v. Hansel, 70 F.3d 6, 8 (2d Cir.1995) (per curiam); Byrd v. State, 754 So.2d 191, 192 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 2000) (per curiam); People v. Gwinn, 255 Ill.App.3d 628 , 194 Ill.Dec. 362 , 627 N.E.2d 699, 701-02 (1994); People v. Brocksmith, 237 Ill.App.3d 818 , 178 Ill.Dec. 536 , 604 N.E.2d 1059, 1065-66 (1992); Commonwealth v. Barrett, 418 Mass. 788 , 641 N.E.2d 1302, 1306, 1308 (1994); State v. Wiemer, 3 Neb. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| McGowan v. United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Garvin v. Gordon green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Desmet v. Sublett green | 1 | 1965–1965 |
| Portner v. Tanner green | 1 | 1963–1963 |
| Hood v. Southern Production Co. green | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| Von Hatzfeld v. Haubert neutral | 1 | 1951–1951 |
| In Re the Guardianship of Wilber neutral | 1 | 1944–1944 |
| Yosemite Gold Mining & Milling Co. v. Emerson green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Sturtevant v. Vogel green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| English v. Johnson green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Dripps v. the Allison's Mines Co. green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Stock v. Plunkett green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Jupiter Mining Co. v. Bodie Consolidated Mining Co. green | 1 | 1939–1939 |
| Hill v. Tucker green | 1 | 1891–1891 |
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.