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.
13 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Jernigangreen2 sentences2020See State v. Jernigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 5 , 139 N.M. 1 , 127 P.3d 537 (“Although the evidence shows [the victim’s girlfriend] was clearly at risk of some injury, it does not support the view that [the d]efendant believed [the victim’s girlfriend] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm so as to warrant a defense of another instruction for the shooting of [the victim].”). 2020See State v. Jernigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 5 , 139 N.M. 1 , 127 P.3d 537 (“Although the evidence shows [the victim’s girlfriend] was clearly at risk of some injury, it does not support the view that [the d]efendant believed [the victim’s girlfriend] was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm so as to warrant a defense of another instruction for the shooting of [the victim].”). | 5 | 8 |
State v. Sandovalgreen2 sentences2020New Mexico “[c]ase law and commentary treat ‘defense of another’ and ‘self-defense’ as virtually identical for purposes of analysis.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 16 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gallegos, 2001-NMCA-021, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 221 , 22 P.3d 689 (using “self-defense” interchangeably with “defense of another”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 3, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (relying on self-defense theory to analyze instructions for defense of another); see also UJI 14-5182 NMRA comm. cmt. (referring specifically to UJI 2020New Mexico “[c]ase law and commentary treat ‘defense of another’ and ‘self-defense’ as virtually identical for purposes of analysis.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 16 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gallegos, 2001-NMCA-021, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 221 , 22 P.3d 689 (using “self-defense” interchangeably with “defense of another”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 3, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (relying on self-defense theory to analyze instructions for defense of another); see also UJI 14-5182 NMRA comm. cmt. (referring specifically to UJI | 1 | 2 |
State v. Oroscogreen2 sentences2020See State v. Orosco, 1982-NMCA-181 , ¶ 10, 99 N.M. 180 , 655 P.2d 1024 (acknowledging that the defendant had successfully raised defense of another in response to a misdemeanor charge for resisting and abusing an officer based on the defendant’s action in protecting his father, and that this identical defense could be used to defeat the battery upon a police officer charge arising from the same incident). 2020See State v. Orosco, 1982-NMCA-181 , ¶ 10, 99 N.M. 180 , 655 P.2d 1024 (acknowledging that the defendant had successfully raised defense of another in response to a misdemeanor charge for resisting and abusing an officer based on the defendant’s action in protecting his father, and that this identical defense could be used to defeat the battery upon a police officer charge arising from the same incident). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Guerragreen1 sentence2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that appellate courts are under no obligation to review unclear or undeveloped arguments). 4 1 theory of the case only “if evidence has been presented that is sufficient to allow 2 reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the offense.” State v. Baxendale, 3 2016-NMCA-048, ¶ 10 , 370 P.3d 813 (internal quotation marks and citation 4 omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rudolfogreen2 sentences2019See State v. Rudolfo, 2008- NMSC-036, ¶ 17, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 (“A defendant is not entitled to a [defense of another] instruction unless it is justified by sufficient evidence on every element of [the defense].”); see also State v. Jernigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 6 , 139 N.M. 1 , 127 P.3d 537 (concluding that where the evidence did not support a view that the defendant believed that his girlfriend was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, the defendant was not entitled to a defense of another instruction). 2019See State v. Rudolfo, 2008- NMSC-036, ¶ 17, 144 N.M. 305 , 187 P.3d 170 (“A defendant is not entitled to a [defense of another] instruction unless it is justified by sufficient evidence on every element of [the defense].”); see also State v. Jernigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 6 , 139 N.M. 1 , 127 P.3d 537 (concluding that where the evidence did not support a view that the defendant believed that his girlfriend was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, the defendant was not entitled to a defense of another instruction). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Baxendalegreen1 sentence2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (explaining that appellate courts are under no obligation to review unclear or undeveloped arguments). 4 1 theory of the case only “if evidence has been presented that is sufficient to allow 2 reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the offense.” State v. Baxendale, 3 2016-NMCA-048, ¶ 10 , 370 P.3d 813 (internal quotation marks and citation 4 omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torrezgreen1 sentence2019See State v. Torrez, 2013-NMSC-034, ¶ 37 , 305 P.3d 944 (holding that there was insufficient evidence to support a defense of another instruction because although the defendant’s friends were in a nearby vehicle, the evidence only established that the defendant shot the victim to protect himself). {16} Similar to our Supreme Court’s conclusion that there was no immediate threat of great bodily harm to the defendant’s girlfriend in Jernigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 6 , we cannot say that under these facts, Defendant’s family was in imminent danger. | 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. Duarte
green
2 sentences2020New Mexico “[c]ase law and commentary treat ‘defense of another’ and ‘self-defense’ as virtually identical for purposes of analysis.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 16 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gallegos, 2001-NMCA-021, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 221 , 22 P.3d 689 (using “self-defense” interchangeably with “defense of another”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 3, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (relying on self-defense theory to analyze instructions for defense of another); see also UJI 14-5182 NMRA comm. cmt. (referring specifically to UJI 2020New Mexico “[c]ase law and commentary treat ‘defense of another’ and ‘self-defense’ as virtually identical for purposes of analysis.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 16 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gallegos, 2001-NMCA-021, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 221 , 22 P.3d 689 (using “self-defense” interchangeably with “defense of another”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 3, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (relying on self-defense theory to analyze instructions for defense of another); see also UJI 14-5182 NMRA comm. cmt. (referring specifically to UJI | 2 | 2012–2020 |
State v. Lopez
green
2 sentences2022A defense of another instruction should be given if the evidence “is 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 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {7} Applying this standard and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction, we conclude Defendant did not present sufficient evidence as to the first element of defense of another—whether “[t]here was an appearance of immediate danger of great bodily harm to Alexandria . . . as a result of the loss pr 2022A defense of another instruction should be given if the evidence “is 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 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {7} Applying this standard and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction, we conclude Defendant did not present sufficient evidence as to the first element of defense of another—whether “[t]here was an appearance of immediate danger of great bodily harm to Alexandria . . . as a result of the loss pr | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Gallegos
green
2 sentences2020New Mexico “[c]ase law and commentary treat ‘defense of another’ and ‘self-defense’ as virtually identical for purposes of analysis.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 16 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gallegos, 2001-NMCA-021, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 221 , 22 P.3d 689 (using “self-defense” interchangeably with “defense of another”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 3, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (relying on self-defense theory to analyze instructions for defense of another); see also UJI 14-5182 NMRA comm. cmt. (referring specifically to UJI 2020New Mexico “[c]ase law and commentary treat ‘defense of another’ and ‘self-defense’ as virtually identical for purposes of analysis.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 16 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Gallegos, 2001-NMCA-021, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 221 , 22 P.3d 689 (using “self-defense” interchangeably with “defense of another”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 3, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (relying on self-defense theory to analyze instructions for defense of another); see also UJI 14-5182 NMRA comm. cmt. (referring specifically to UJI | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stoddard v. District School Board for School District No. 91
green
1 sentence2012See Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 10, 19 (concluding that defense of 10 another and self-defense instructions were warranted by the evidence although the 11 defendant did not testify); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 7, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 12 P.2d 309 (rejecting the State’s argument that because the defendant did not testify, he 13 was not entitled to a defense of another instruction, where the evidence otherwise 14 supported giving the instruction). 15 Defendant was entitled to defense of another instructions if: (1) there was an 16 appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Hill
green
2 sentences2005Defendant testified that “[Scott] wasn’t the violent one____Only reason I shot [Scott] is because he went to the car and he was coming back and ... he looked like he had ... a gun in his hand.” This evidence does not support an instruction for defense of another for the killing of Scott, as it does not support any appearance of imminent death or great bodily harm to Jessica. 2 {7} Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the requested instruction, see State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 5 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 , we hold Defendant did not present sufficient evidence to allo 2005Defendant testified that “[Scott] wasn’t the violent one____Only reason I shot [Scott] is because he went to the car and he was coming back and ... he looked like he had ... a gun in his hand.” This evidence does not support an instruction for defense of another for the killing of Scott, as it does not support any appearance of imminent death or great bodily harm to Jessica. 2 {7} Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the requested instruction, see State v. Hill, 2001-NMCA-094, ¶ 5 , 131 N.M. 195 , 34 P.3d 139 , we hold Defendant did not present sufficient evidence to allo | 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.