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 1994–2026 5 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. Camposgreen2 sentences2026Even were we to accept that any error with 16 respect to the admission of Exhibit 2 was invited, see State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC- 17 043, ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1226 (determining that the defendant invited error 18 when he voluntarily “[a]cquiesce[d] in the admission of evidence” and concluding 19 that “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 20 defendant’s own invited mistakes”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Groves, 1 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 , there is no support in the record that Defendant’s 2 acquiescence to Exhibit 2 invited the State’s sub 2025“The doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated by State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 ; see also, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“New Mexico courts ‘have consistently followed the ethical maxim that no party can profit by his own wrong.’” (quoting Proper v. Mowry, 1977-NMCA-080 , ¶ 69, 90 N.M. 710 , 568 P.2d 236 )). | 3 | 10 |
State v. Ortegagreen2 sentences2025“The doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated by State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 ; see also, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“New Mexico courts ‘have consistently followed the ethical maxim that no party can profit by his own wrong.’” (quoting Proper v. Mowry, 1977-NMCA-080 , ¶ 69, 90 N.M. 710 , 568 P.2d 236 )). 2021See State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“The doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” (quoting State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 )). 2. | 3 | 3 |
Proper v. Mowrygreen2 sentences2025“The doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated by State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 ; see also, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“New Mexico courts ‘have consistently followed the ethical maxim that no party can profit by his own wrong.’” (quoting Proper v. Mowry, 1977-NMCA-080 , ¶ 69, 90 N.M. 710 , 568 P.2d 236 )). 2025“The doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated by State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 ; see also, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“New Mexico courts ‘have consistently followed the ethical maxim that no party can profit by his own wrong.’” (quoting Proper v. Mowry, 1977-NMCA-080 , ¶ 69, 90 N.M. 710 , 568 P.2d 236 )). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Handagreen2 sentences2022We remind counsel of the obligations set forth in Rule 12-318(A)(3) NMRA (stating that the brief in chief shall contain “a summary of proceedings, briefly describing the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below, and including a summary of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review”). defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated on other grounds as stated in State v. Groves, 2021- NMSC-003, 478 P.3d 915 ; see also State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 N.M. 38 , 897 P 2014Further, “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 2 defendant’s own invited mistakes.” Id. “[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and 3 to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and 4 equitable administration of justice.” State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 5 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation 6 omitted). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Hill, 2008-NMCA-117, ¶ 22 , 144 N.M. 775 , 192 P.3d 770 (deeming a plain error claim waived by acquiescence where the defense not only failed to object to the testimony in question, but went so far as to cross- examine the witness on the subject of that testimony); cf. State v. Campos, 1996- NMSC-043, ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 (providing that “[a]cquiescence in the admission of evidence . . . constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal” and “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes”), abrogated on other grounds as 2023See State v. Hill, 2008-NMCA-117, ¶ 22 , 144 N.M. 775 , 192 P.3d 770 (deeming a plain error claim waived by acquiescence where the defense not only failed to object to the testimony in question, but went so far as to cross- examine the witness on the subject of that testimony); cf. State v. Campos, 1996- NMSC-043, ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 (providing that “[a]cquiescence in the admission of evidence . . . constitutes waiver of the issue on appeal” and “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes”), abrogated on other grounds as | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2022We remind counsel of the obligations set forth in Rule 12-318(A)(3) NMRA (stating that the brief in chief shall contain “a summary of proceedings, briefly describing the nature of the case, the course of proceedings, and the disposition in the court below, and including a summary of the facts relevant to the issues presented for review”). defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated on other grounds as stated in State v. Groves, 2021- NMSC-003, 478 P.3d 915 ; see also State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 N.M. 38 , 897 P | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bankertgreen2 sentences1996State v. Bankert, 117 N.M. 614, 622 , 875 P.2d 370, 376 (1994). 1996State v. Bankert, 117 N.M. 614, 622 , 875 P.2d 370, 376 (1994). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences1994State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 295 , 772 P.2d 322, 329 (finding no application of the doctrine of fundamental error “where the defendant by his own actions created the error”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 664 , 789 P.2d 603, 612 (1990). 1994State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 295 , 772 P.2d 322, 329 (finding no application of the doctrine of fundamental error “where the defendant by his own actions created the error”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 664 , 789 P.2d 603, 612 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1994State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 295 , 772 P.2d 322, 329 (finding no application of the doctrine of fundamental error “where the defendant by his own actions created the error”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 664 , 789 P.2d 603, 612 (1990). 1994State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 295 , 772 P.2d 322, 329 (finding no application of the doctrine of fundamental error “where the defendant by his own actions created the error”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 664 , 789 P.2d 603, 612 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Camposgreen2 sentences2026Even were we to accept that any error with 16 respect to the admission of Exhibit 2 was invited, see State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC- 17 043, ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1226 (determining that the defendant invited error 18 when he voluntarily “[a]cquiesce[d] in the admission of evidence” and concluding 19 that “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 20 defendant’s own invited mistakes”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Groves, 1 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 , there is no support in the record that Defendant’s 2 acquiescence to Exhibit 2 invited the State’s sub 2025“The doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 , abrogated by State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 ; see also, e.g., State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (“New Mexico courts ‘have consistently followed the ethical maxim that no party can profit by his own wrong.’” (quoting Proper v. Mowry, 1977-NMCA-080 , ¶ 69, 90 N.M. 710 , 568 P.2d 236 )). | 1 | 10 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Groves
green
2 sentences2026Even were we to accept that any error with 16 respect to the admission of Exhibit 2 was invited, see State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC- 17 043, ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1226 (determining that the defendant invited error 18 when he voluntarily “[a]cquiesce[d] in the admission of evidence” and concluding 19 that “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 20 defendant’s own invited mistakes”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Groves, 1 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 , there is no support in the record that Defendant’s 2 acquiescence to Exhibit 2 invited the State’s sub 2026Even were we to accept that any error with 16 respect to the admission of Exhibit 2 was invited, see State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC- 17 043, ¶ 47, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1226 (determining that the defendant invited error 18 when he voluntarily “[a]cquiesce[d] in the admission of evidence” and concluding 19 that “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 20 defendant’s own invited mistakes”), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Groves, 1 2021-NMSC-003 , 478 P.3d 915 , there is no support in the record that Defendant’s 2 acquiescence to Exhibit 2 invited the State’s sub | 4 | 2022–2026 |
Behrens v. Gateway Court, LLC
neutral
1 sentence2014Further, “[t]he doctrine of fundamental error cannot be invoked to remedy the 2 defendant’s own invited mistakes.” Id. “[T]o allow a defendant to invite error and 3 to subsequently complain about that very error would subvert the orderly and 4 equitable administration of justice.” State v. Handa, 1995-NMCA-042 , ¶ 35, 120 5 N.M. 38 , 897 P.2d 225 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation 6 omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Toole v. United States
green
1 sentence1994State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 295 , 772 P.2d 322, 329 (finding no application of the doctrine of fundamental error “where the defendant by his own actions created the error”), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989), overruled on other grounds by State v. Henderson, 109 N.M. 655, 664 , 789 P.2d 603, 612 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.