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.
14 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2015–2026 11 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. Sosagreen2 sentences2025The remaining factors are of less utility in the cumulative analysis. {18} As we have noted, the Sosa factors are intended to be “useful guides” to evaluate whether “the prosecutors’ comments materially altered the trial or likely confused the jury by distorting the evidence, and thereby deprived the accused of a fair trial.” 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 34 . 2025The remaining factors are of less utility in the cumulative analysis. {18} As we have noted, the Sosa factors are intended to be “useful guides” to evaluate whether “the prosecutors’ comments materially altered the trial or likely confused the jury by distorting the evidence, and thereby deprived the accused of a fair trial.” 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 34 . | 3 | 8 |
State v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Collins, 2005-NMCA-044, ¶ 41 , 137 N.M. 353 , 110 P.3d 1090 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037, ¶ 18 , 146 N.M. 481 , 212 P.3d 369 . {8} With regard to the first two Sosa factors, Defendant concedes that the State’s comment during closing did not invade any particular constitutional protection and that it was only made once. 2022See State v. Collins, 2005-NMCA-044, ¶ 41 , 137 N.M. 353 , 110 P.3d 1090 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037, ¶ 18 , 146 N.M. 481 , 212 P.3d 369 . {8} With regard to the first two Sosa factors, Defendant concedes that the State’s comment during closing did not invade any particular constitutional protection and that it was only made once. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Williegreen2 sentences2022See State v. Collins, 2005-NMCA-044, ¶ 41 , 137 N.M. 353 , 110 P.3d 1090 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037, ¶ 18 , 146 N.M. 481 , 212 P.3d 369 . {8} With regard to the first two Sosa factors, Defendant concedes that the State’s comment during closing did not invade any particular constitutional protection and that it was only made once. 2022See State v. Collins, 2005-NMCA-044, ¶ 41 , 137 N.M. 353 , 110 P.3d 1090 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Willie, 2009-NMSC-037, ¶ 18 , 146 N.M. 481 , 212 P.3d 369 . {8} With regard to the first two Sosa factors, Defendant concedes that the State’s comment during closing did not invade any particular constitutional protection and that it was only made once. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2022See State v. Pennington, 1993-NMCA- 037, ¶ 32, 115 N.M. 372 , 851 P.2d 494 (stating that where improper commentary by the prosecution during closing argument is alleged, “[t]he proper procedure would have been to object to the statements at the time the prosecutor made them” so that the district court can “assess the prejudicial nature of the statements and take curative steps”). {35} We turn now to the Sosa factors to assess whether the statements Defendant complains of require reversal. 2022See State v. Pennington, 1993-NMCA- 037, ¶ 32, 115 N.M. 372 , 851 P.2d 494 (stating that where improper commentary by the prosecution during closing argument is alleged, “[t]he proper procedure would have been to object to the statements at the time the prosecutor made them” so that the district court can “assess the prejudicial nature of the statements and take curative steps”). {35} We turn now to the Sosa factors to assess whether the statements Defendant complains of require reversal. | 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. Diaz
green
2 sentences2025Relying instead on State v. Diaz, 1983-NMCA-091 , 100 N.M. 210 , 668 P.2d 326 , Defendant asserts the prosecutor misstated the law on the diminished capacity defense and thus “denied Mr. Gallegos a legally recognized defense.” Diaz is readily distinguishable and this claim is belied by the record. {36} In Diaz, the prosecutor flatly misstated the law by commenting that the defendant’s intoxication defense required expert testimony. 2025Relying instead on State v. Diaz, 1983-NMCA-091 , 100 N.M. 210 , 668 P.2d 326 , Defendant asserts the prosecutor misstated the law on the diminished capacity defense and thus “denied Mr. Gallegos a legally recognized defense.” Diaz is readily distinguishable and this claim is belied by the record. {36} In Diaz, the prosecutor flatly misstated the law by commenting that the defendant’s intoxication defense required expert testimony. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Torres
green
2 sentences2023While we do not dispute that this is a reasonable inference from the prosecutor’s statements, these comments only indirectly implicate such rights, the jury was properly instructed that Defendant was presumed to be innocent and the State bore the burden of proof, and the comments “did not touch on the elements the jury was required to find in order to convict Defendant.” See Torres, 2012-NMSC-016, ¶ 12 . 2023While we do not dispute that this is a reasonable inference from the prosecutor’s statements, these comments only indirectly implicate such rights, the jury was properly instructed that Defendant was presumed to be innocent and the State bore the burden of proof, and the comments “did not touch on the elements the jury was required to find in order to convict Defendant.” See Torres, 2012-NMSC-016, ¶ 12 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Sena
green
2 sentences2021Indeed, “[p]rosecutors do not have license to make improper and prejudicial comments with impunity.” State v. Sena, 2020-NMSC-011, ¶ 31 , 470 P.3d 227 . {32} We now turn to the Sosa factors to determine whether these improper statements amount to fundamental error. 2021Indeed, “[p]rosecutors do not have license to make improper and prejudicial comments with impunity.” State v. Sena, 2020-NMSC-011, ¶ 31 , 470 P.3d 227 . {32} We now turn to the Sosa factors to determine whether these improper statements amount to fundamental error. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tollardo
green
1 sentence2020We therefore proceed to the State’s argument that no prejudice resulted. {29} In the case of a constitutional error, “it is harmless only if the challenger can prove there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 33 , 376 P.3d 184 (quoting State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC- 008, ¶ 25, 275 P.3d 110 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Thomas
green
1 sentence2020We therefore proceed to the State’s argument that no prejudice resulted. {29} In the case of a constitutional error, “it is harmless only if the challenger can prove there is no reasonable possibility that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 33 , 376 P.3d 184 (quoting State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC- 008, ¶ 25, 275 P.3d 110 ). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences2018As previously stated, in context, the 13 prosecutor’s comment invited both a permissible and an impermissible inference. 14 Moreover, the impermissible inference (i.e., that Defendant bore the burden of proving 15 his own innocence) was promptly, clearly, and repeatedly corrected by both counsel 16 and the court. [MIO 1, 4] See Brown, 1997-NMSC-029, ¶ 23 , 123 N.M. 413 , 941 P.2d 17 494 (observing that where an improper statement is corrected by counsel or the court, 18 a mistrial is not likely to be required). 2018As previously stated, in context, the 13 prosecutor’s comment invited both a permissible and an impermissible inference. 14 Moreover, the impermissible inference (i.e., that Defendant bore the burden of proving 15 his own innocence) was promptly, clearly, and repeatedly corrected by both counsel 16 and the court. [MIO 1, 4] See Brown, 1997-NMSC-029, ¶ 23 , 123 N.M. 413 , 941 P.2d 17 494 (observing that where an improper statement is corrected by counsel or the court, 18 a mistrial is not likely to be required). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
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.