burden of showing error in New Mexico

94 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1897–2026 48 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 (19)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Aragongreen nmctapp · 1999 · cited in 90 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2005–2026 2 sentences 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t	64	90
Farmers, Inc. v. Dal MacHine & Fabricating, Inc.green nm · 1990 · cited in 18 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2016–2024 2 sentences 2024See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 2024See Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the district court erred); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error).	11	18
Hennessy v. Duryeagreen nmctapp · 1998 · cited in 11 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2015–2024 2 sentences 2024See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10; see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 2021See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); Farmers, Inc. v. Dal Mach. & Fabricating, Inc., 1990-NMSC-100 , ¶ 8, 111 N.M. 6 , 800 P.2d 1063 (stating that the burden is on the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the trial court erred); Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 , 124 N.M. 754 , 955 P.2d 683 (holding that “in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law”).	8	11
State v. Mondragonred nmctapp · 1988 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2016–2022 2 sentences 2022See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013- NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374 ; see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). {5} After noting the apparent lack of 2022See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact”), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013- NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374 ; see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). {5} After noting the apparent lack of	2	4
State v. Rojogreen nm · 1998 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2017 2 sentences 2017See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 8 1 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial 2 court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); State v. 3 Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 53 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that where there 4 is a doubtful or deficient record, every presumption must be indulged by the reviewing 5 court in favor of the correctness and regularity of the district court’s judgment). 6 {11} Finally, we address the issues raised in Defendant’s motion to amend the 7 do 2017See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 8 1 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial 2 court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); State v. 3 Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 53 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (stating that where there 4 is a doubtful or deficient record, every presumption must be indulged by the reviewing 5 court in favor of the correctness and regularity of the district court’s judgment). 6 {11} Finally, we address the issues raised in Defendant’s motion to amend the 7 do	2	4
State v. Harrisgreen nmctapp · 2013 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2016–2021 2 sentences 2021See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact” and concluding that the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3 , 297 P.3d 374 ; State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming 2016See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 18 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of 19 the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); 3 1 State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 (stating 2 that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and 3 specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments 4 does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in 5 State	1	3
State v. Widmergreen nmctapp · 2020 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2021–2022 2 sentences 2022See State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1254 (“Given the presumption of correctness in the district court’s ruling, the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error.”). {9} Having carefully reviewed Defendant’s testimony and the evidence included in the record, we hold that Defendant did not present evidence that would allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense of another. 2022See State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1254 (“Given the presumption of correctness in the district court’s ruling, the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error.”). {9} Having carefully reviewed Defendant’s testimony and the evidence included in the record, we hold that Defendant did not present evidence that would allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense of another.	1	2
State v. Chamberlaingreen nmctapp · 1989 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2016–2020 2 sentences 2020See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing error); State v. Chamberlain, 1989-NMCA-082 , ¶ 11, 109 N.M. 173 , 783 P.2d 483 (holding that the appellant’s failure to provide the court with a summary of all the facts material to consideration of an issue on appeal necessitated a denial of relief). 2020See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing error); State v. Chamberlain, 1989-NMCA-082 , ¶ 11, 109 N.M. 173 , 783 P.2d 483 (holding that the appellant’s failure to provide the court with a summary of all the facts material to consideration of an issue on appeal necessitated a denial of relief).	1	2
State v. Nealgreen nmctapp · 2007 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026 2 sentences 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t	1	1
Taylor v. Van Winkle's Iga Farmer's Marketgreen nmctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 2 sentences 2024See Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA- 111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486 , 927 P.2d 41 (recognizing that issues raised in a docketing statement, but not contested in a memorandum in opposition are abandoned). {7} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. {8} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2024See Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA- 111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486 , 927 P.2d 41 (recognizing that issues raised in a docketing statement, but not contested in a memorandum in opposition are abandoned). {7} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. {8} IT IS SO ORDERED.	1	1
State v. Gibsongreen nmctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 2 sentences 2023See State v. Gibson, 1992-NMCA-017 , ¶ 53, 113 N.M. 547 , 828 P.2d 980 (stating that in the context of a claim for a due process violation, “[t]he prejudice must be ‘actual’ and ‘substantial’”); State v. Palmer, 1998-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 125 N.M. 86 , 957 P.2d 71 (“[T]he prejudice afforded protection by procedural due process is prejudice which impacts the defense, not the defendant.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 2023See State v. Gibson, 1992-NMCA-017 , ¶ 53, 113 N.M. 547 , 828 P.2d 980 (stating that in the context of a claim for a due process violation, “[t]he prejudice must be ‘actual’ and ‘substantial’”); State v. Palmer, 1998-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 125 N.M. 86 , 957 P.2d 71 (“[T]he prejudice afforded protection by procedural due process is prejudice which impacts the defense, not the defendant.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).	1	1
State v. Vigil-Girongreen nmctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023See State v. Vigil-Giron, 2014-NMCA-069, ¶ 60 , 327 P.3d 1129 (stating that “appellate courts will not consider an issue if no authority is cited in support of the issue and that, given no cited authority, we assume no such authority exists”); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA- 060, ¶ 10, 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (holding that “[t]here is a presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings,” and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).	1	1
State v. Laragreen nmctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See State v. Lara, 1990-NMCA-075 , ¶ 27, 110 N.M. 507 , 797 P.2d 296 (explaining that it is not error to refuse to instruct the jury when there is no evidence to support the giving requested instruction); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (explaining that “[t]here is a presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings[,]” and the party claiming error on appeal bears the burden of showing such error). 2021See State v. Lara, 1990-NMCA-075 , ¶ 27, 110 N.M. 507 , 797 P.2d 296 (explaining that it is not error to refuse to instruct the jury when there is no evidence to support the giving requested instruction); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (explaining that “[t]here is a presumption of correctness in the district court’s rulings[,]” and the party claiming error on appeal bears the burden of showing such error).	1	1
State v. Hestergreen nm · 1999 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See State v. Hester, 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 , 127 N.M. 218 , 979 P.2d 729 (“The mere fact that the defense was not successful does not equate to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.”); State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M. 719 , 204 P.3d 44 (stating that “the burden on the defendant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense”); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and t 2021See State v. Hester, 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 , 127 N.M. 218 , 979 P.2d 729 (“The mere fact that the defense was not successful does not equate to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.”); State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M. 719 , 204 P.3d 44 (stating that “the burden on the defendant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense”); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and t	1	1
Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerquegreen nmctapp · 2020 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021As we have repeatedly emphasized, “[g]iven the presumption of correctness in the district court’s ruling, the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error.” State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1254 ; see also, e.g., Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 (“[I]t is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.”). 2021As we have repeatedly emphasized, “[g]iven the presumption of correctness in the district court’s ruling, the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error.” State v. Widmer, 2021-NMCA-003, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1254 ; see also, e.g., Premier Tr. of Nev., Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, 2021-NMCA-004, ¶ 10 , 482 P.3d 1261 (“[I]t is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate, by providing well-supported and clear arguments, that the district court has erred.”).	1	1
State v. Riversgreen washctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 16 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of 17 the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 18 {3} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant fulfilled his obligations under 19 Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA and our case law, see id. (requiring a docketing statement 2 1 to contain “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to 2 a consideration of the issues presented”); Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093 , ¶ 3 18, 101 2015See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 16 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of 17 the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 18 {3} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant fulfilled his obligations under 19 Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA and our case law, see id. (requiring a docketing statement 2 1 to contain “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to 2 a consideration of the issues presented”); Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093 , ¶ 3 18, 101	1	1
Coleman-Nelson Gasoline Co. v. Montgomerygreen okla · 1931 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012	1	1
State v. Montoyagreen nmctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	1	1
State v. Webergreen nm · 1966 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003	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 (20)

Case	Cited	Years
Muse v. Muse green nmctapp · 2008 2 sentences 2024Second, “[w]e will not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.” Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 . 2024Second, “[w]e will not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.” Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 .	4	2019–2024
Headley v. Morgan Management Corp. green nmctapp · 2005 2 sentences 2024Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15 , 137 N.M. 339 , 110 P.3d 1076 ; Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 . {14} There is a presumption of correctness in the rulings of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error. 2024Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15 , 137 N.M. 339 , 110 P.3d 1076 ; Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 . {14} There is a presumption of correctness in the rulings of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error.	2	2015–2024
State v. Silva green nm · 2008 2 sentences 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t	1	2026–2026
State v. Romero green nm · 2023 1 sentence 2026See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (providing that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error); see also State v. Neal, 2007- NMCA-086, ¶ 42, 142 N.M. 487 , 167 P.3d 935 (“[I]n order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice.”); State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (clarifying that we employ the fundamental error exception to the preservation rule “only under extraordinary circumstances t	1	2026–2026
State v. Fuentes green nmctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2024Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15 , 137 N.M. 339 , 110 P.3d 1076 ; Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 . {14} There is a presumption of correctness in the rulings of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error.	1	2024–2024
State v. Palmer green nmctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2023See State v. Gibson, 1992-NMCA-017 , ¶ 53, 113 N.M. 547 , 828 P.2d 980 (stating that in the context of a claim for a due process violation, “[t]he prejudice must be ‘actual’ and ‘substantial’”); State v. Palmer, 1998-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 125 N.M. 86 , 957 P.2d 71 (“[T]he prejudice afforded protection by procedural due process is prejudice which impacts the defense, not the defendant.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). 2023See State v. Gibson, 1992-NMCA-017 , ¶ 53, 113 N.M. 547 , 828 P.2d 980 (stating that in the context of a claim for a due process violation, “[t]he prejudice must be ‘actual’ and ‘substantial’”); State v. Palmer, 1998-NMCA-052, ¶ 7 , 125 N.M. 86 , 957 P.2d 71 (“[T]he prejudice afforded protection by procedural due process is prejudice which impacts the defense, not the defendant.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).	1	2023–2023
State v. Dylan J. green nmctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2021See State v. Hester, 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 , 127 N.M. 218 , 979 P.2d 729 (“The mere fact that the defense was not successful does not equate to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.”); State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M. 719 , 204 P.3d 44 (stating that “the burden on the defendant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense”); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and t 2021See State v. Hester, 1999-NMSC-020, ¶ 16 , 127 N.M. 218 , 979 P.2d 729 (“The mere fact that the defense was not successful does not equate to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.”); State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M. 719 , 204 P.3d 44 (stating that “the burden on the defendant to show that his counsel’s performance was deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced his defense”); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and t	1	2021–2021
State v. Baxendale green nmctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2021Defendant supports his argument in this case with only a cursory citation to Baxendale for the basic proposition that “deadly force is the force employed, whether or not it results in a lethal effect.” 2016-NMCA-048 , ¶ 13.	1	2021–2021
State v. DeGraff green nm · 2006 2 sentences 2020Double Jeopardy {11} Defendant argues that his convictions for violation of an order of protection alongside his conviction for aggravated stalking violate his right to be free from double jeopardy and that we should therefore vacate his convictions for violations of orders of protection. [MIO 8, 13] Although Defendant raised a double jeopardy argument in his docketing statement, he has changed the nature of his argument in his memorandum in opposition and filed a motion to amend to raise the “double-description” issue, now arguing that he was “charged with more than one statutory violation fo 2020Double Jeopardy {11} Defendant argues that his convictions for violation of an order of protection alongside his conviction for aggravated stalking violate his right to be free from double jeopardy and that we should therefore vacate his convictions for violations of orders of protection. [MIO 8, 13] Although Defendant raised a double jeopardy argument in his docketing statement, he has changed the nature of his argument in his memorandum in opposition and filed a motion to amend to raise the “double-description” issue, now arguing that he was “charged with more than one statutory violation fo	1	2020–2020
Salehpoor v. New Mex. Inst. of Mining & Tech. green nmctapp · 2019 1 sentence 2020Inst. of Mining & Tech., 2019-NMCA-046 , ¶ 26, 447 P.3d 1169 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the district court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error).	1	2020–2020
Matter of Estate of Heeter green nmctapp · 1992 2 sentences 2020In re Estate of Heeter, 1992-NMCA-032 , ¶ 15, 113 N.M. 691 , 831 P.2d 990 . {4} Instead, this Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court’s rulings, see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error), and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal. 2020In re Estate of Heeter, 1992-NMCA-032 , ¶ 15, 113 N.M. 691 , 831 P.2d 990 . {4} Instead, this Court operates pursuant to a presumption of correctness in favor of the trial court’s rulings, see State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error), and it is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate error on appeal.	1	2020–2020
State v. Clements green nmctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2016See Rule 5-509(A) (“If the defense in an habitual criminal sentencing 4 1 proceeding intends to attack the validity of any prior conviction, . . . the defendant 2 shall provide the state with a written notice of such intention.”); State v. Clements, 3 2009-NMCA-085, ¶ 23 , 146 N.M. 745 , 215 P.3d 54 (“Rule 5-509(A) does provide 4 that the defendant has a duty to notify the State in the event the validity of a prior 5 conviction is to be contested.”). 2016See Rule 5-509(A) (“If the defense in an habitual criminal sentencing 4 1 proceeding intends to attack the validity of any prior conviction, . . . the defendant 2 shall provide the state with a written notice of such intention.”); State v. Clements, 3 2009-NMCA-085, ¶ 23 , 146 N.M. 745 , 215 P.3d 54 (“Rule 5-509(A) does provide 4 that the defendant has a duty to notify the State in the event the validity of a prior 5 conviction is to be contested.”).	1	2016–2016
Thornton v. Gamble green nmctapp · 1984 2 sentences 2015See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 16 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of 17 the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 18 {3} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant fulfilled his obligations under 19 Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA and our case law, see id. (requiring a docketing statement 2 1 to contain “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to 2 a consideration of the issues presented”); Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093 , ¶ 3 18, 101 2015See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 16 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of 17 the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 18 {3} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant fulfilled his obligations under 19 Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA and our case law, see id. (requiring a docketing statement 2 1 to contain “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to 2 a consideration of the issues presented”); Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093 , ¶ 3 18, 101	1	2015–2015
State v. Collier green nm · 2013	1	2015–2015
Barker v. Wingo green scotus · 1972 1 sentence 2015See State v. Aragon, 1999-NMCA-060, ¶ 10 , 127 N.M. 393 , 981 P.2d 16 1211 (stating that there is a presumption of correctness in the rulings or decisions of 17 the trial court, and the party claiming error bears the burden of showing such error). 18 {3} In his memorandum in opposition, Defendant fulfilled his obligations under 19 Rule 12-208(D)(3) NMRA and our case law, see id. (requiring a docketing statement 2 1 to contain “a concise, accurate statement of the case summarizing all facts material to 2 a consideration of the issues presented”); Thornton v. Gamble, 1984-NMCA-093 , ¶ 3 18, 101	1	2015–2015
State v. Heinsen green nm · 2005	1	2012–2012
Martinez v. Chavez green nm · 2007	1	2012–2012
State v. Tran green nmctapp · 2008	1	2011–2011
State v. Balderama green nm · 2004	1	2009–2009
Red River Cattle Co. v. Sully neutral scotus · 1892	1	1897–1897

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-102 (6) NM § N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-28 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 29-1-11 (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

OH 405 (1980–2026) GA 147 (1906–2026) CA 133 (1895–2026) NM 94 (1897–2026) MN 59 (1983–2026) WV 52 (1966–2026) MO 37 (1915–2025) ID 33 (1927–2021) LA 31 (1978–2018) SC 29 (1977–2023) SD 29 (1997–2026) ND 28 (1901–2026) NC 25 (1921–2021) TX 24 (1927–2020) WA 23 (1971–2024) FL 17 (1939–2016) IN 16 (1905–2014) IL 15 (1980–2026) IA 13 (1979–2017) AL 11 (1920–2025) KS 11 (1987–2025) ME 10 (1947–2023) AZ 8 (2009–2023) MA 7 (1935–2002) NY 7 (1894–1994) UT 7 (1964–2018) CO 7 (1913–2018) MT 6 (1910–2004) HI 6 (1967–2020) WI 5 (1976–2012) PA 5 (1941–2019) WY 4 (1969–2025) VT 4 (2001–2018) VA 4 (1935–2008) NJ 3 (1953–2011) MD 3 (1923–2015) OR 3 (1901–2012) TN 3 (1981–2012) GU 3 (2023–2025) AR 2 (2001–2005) DE 2 (2024–2025) NV 2 (1980–2015)

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