purposes of the preservation rule in New Mexico

2025See DeFillippo v. Neil, 2002-NMCA-085, ¶ 12 , 132 10 N.M. 529 , 51 P.3d 1183 (discussing the purposes of the preservation rule). 11 Defendant did not object to his exclusion from the deposition on the basis that the 12 district court did not make the required factual findings, nor did Defendant raise the 13 absence of findings as an objection to the admission of the videotaped deposition in 14 lieu of Child’s live testimony at trial.

2025See DeFillippo v. Neil, 2002-NMCA-085, ¶ 12 , 132 10 N.M. 529 , 51 P.3d 1183 (discussing the purposes of the preservation rule). 11 Defendant did not object to his exclusion from the deposition on the basis that the 12 district court did not make the required factual findings, nor did Defendant raise the 13 absence of findings as an objection to the admission of the videotaped deposition in 14 lieu of Child’s live testimony at trial.

2017This satisfies the purposes of the preservation rule, which are: 15 (1) to specifically alert the district court to a claim of error so that any 16 mistake can be corrected at that time, (2) to allow the opposing party a 17 fair opportunity to respond to the claim of error and to show why the 18 court should rule against that claim, and (3) to create a record sufficient 19 to allow this Court to make an informed decision regarding the contested 20 issue. 21 Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009-NMCA-095, ¶ 56 , 146 22 N.M. 853 , 215 P.3d 791 .

2017This satisfies the purposes of the preservation rule, which are: 15 (1) to specifically alert the district court to a claim of error so that any 16 mistake can be corrected at that time, (2) to allow the opposing party a 17 fair opportunity to respond to the claim of error and to show why the 18 court should rule against that claim, and (3) to create a record sufficient 19 to allow this Court to make an informed decision regarding the contested 20 issue. 21 Sandoval v. Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc., 2009-NMCA-095, ¶ 56 , 146 22 N.M. 853 , 215 P.3d 791 .

2023See Morga v. Fedex Ground Package Sys., Inc., 2018-NMCA-039 , ¶ 39, 420 P.3d 586 (noting that one of the purposes of the preservation rule is “to create a record sufficient to allow this Court to make an informed decision regarding the contested issue”). {8} In this case, lack of preservation impairs our ability to evaluate whether the denial of a hearing substantially increased the probability of an erroneous ruling: one of the elements of a due process claim.

2023As noted, one of the purposes of the preservation requirement is to “create a sufficient record to allow [appellate courts] to make an informed decision regarding the contested issue.” Montoya, 2016-NMCA-098, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021See State v. Magby, 1998- NMSC-042, ¶ 20, 126 N.M. 361 , 969 P.2d 965 (holding that the defendant’s objection to the jury instructions remained preserved when he did not withdraw his objection and there was considerable disagreement between the parties about the proper instructions), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 . {49} We next address the merits of the court’s response to the jury’s question.

2021See State v. Magby, 1998- NMSC-042, ¶ 20, 126 N.M. 361 , 969 P.2d 965 (holding that the defendant’s objection to the jury instructions remained preserved when he did not withdraw his objection and there was considerable disagreement between the parties about the proper instructions), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 . {49} We next address the merits of the court’s response to the jury’s question.

2021See State v. Magby, 1998- NMSC-042, ¶ 20, 126 N.M. 361 , 969 P.2d 965 (holding that the defendant’s objection to the jury instructions remained preserved when he did not withdraw his objection and there was considerable disagreement between the parties about the proper instructions), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 . {49} We next address the merits of the court’s response to the jury’s question.

2021See State v. Magby, 1998- NMSC-042, ¶ 20, 126 N.M. 361 , 969 P.2d 965 (holding that the defendant’s objection to the jury instructions remained preserved when he did not withdraw his objection and there was considerable disagreement between the parties about the proper instructions), overruled on other grounds by State v. Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 . {49} We next address the merits of the court’s response to the jury’s question.

2012See Gushwa v. Hunt, 2008-NMSC-064, ¶ 47 , 145 N.M. 286 , 18 197 P.3d 1 (explaining the purposes of the preservation rule: to allow the district court 19 an opportunity to correct any errors and to create a sufficient record for an appellate 12 1 court to make informed decisions). 2 Defendant next claims that the district court denied her attempt to require 3 Boyfriend to testify about his arrest for possession of methamphetamine despite his 4 invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

2012See Gushwa v. Hunt, 2008-NMSC-064, ¶ 47 , 145 N.M. 286 , 18 197 P.3d 1 (explaining the purposes of the preservation rule: to allow the district court 19 an opportunity to correct any errors and to create a sufficient record for an appellate 12 1 court to make informed decisions). 2 Defendant next claims that the district court denied her attempt to require 3 Boyfriend to testify about his arrest for possession of methamphetamine despite his 4 invocation of the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent.

2006See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 29 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (indicating that one of the purposes of the preservation rule is to give the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond to the objection). {25} In this case, by waiting until after the judgment had been entered to complain that a negligent employee had not been identified, the City deprived Coleman of the opportunity to introduce evidence identifying specific employees who might have been negligent.

2006See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-006, ¶ 29 , 122 N.M. 777 , 932 P.2d 1 (indicating that one of the purposes of the preservation rule is to give the opposing party a fair opportunity to respond to the objection). {25} In this case, by waiting until after the judgment had been entered to complain that a negligent employee had not been identified, the City deprived Coleman of the opportunity to introduce evidence identifying specific employees who might have been negligent.

2004The purposes of the preservation rule are to alert the district court “to the error so that it is given an opportunity to correct the mistake,” and to give the opposing party “a fair opportunity to meet the objection.” Harbison v. Johnston, 2001-NMCA-051, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 595 , 28 P.3d 1136 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Diversey Corp. v. Chem-Source Corp., 1998-NMCA-112, ¶ 12 , 125 N.M. 748 , 965 P.2d 332 (stating “[t]he party claiming error must have raised the issue below clearly, and have invoked a ruling by the court, thereby giving the trial court an opportunity

2004The purposes of the preservation rule are to alert the district court “to the error so that it is given an opportunity to correct the mistake,” and to give the opposing party “a fair opportunity to meet the objection.” Harbison v. Johnston, 2001-NMCA-051, ¶ 7 , 130 N.M. 595 , 28 P.3d 1136 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Diversey Corp. v. Chem-Source Corp., 1998-NMCA-112, ¶ 12 , 125 N.M. 748 , 965 P.2d 332 (stating “[t]he party claiming error must have raised the issue below clearly, and have invoked a ruling by the court, thereby giving the trial court an opportunity