right for any reason doctrine in New Mexico

2024See State v. Vargas, 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 143 N.M. 692 , 181 P.3d 684 (“Under the ‘right for any reason’ doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by 2Defendant is partnered with Victim’s aunt but they are not married. the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {10} We decline to apply the right for any reason doctrine because Defendant did not make a record of what Victim’s sexual orientation was; neither party addresse

2024See State v. Vargas, 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 143 N.M. 692 , 181 P.3d 684 (“Under the ‘right for any reason’ doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by 2Defendant is partnered with Victim’s aunt but they are not married. the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {10} We decline to apply the right for any reason doctrine because Defendant did not make a record of what Victim’s sexual orientation was; neither party addresse

2025See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 264 (providing 14 that an appellate court may affirm a district court on reasons not considered by the 15 district court when it is not unfair to the appellant and the reasons are supported by 16 substantial evidence); accord State v. Marquez, 2023-NMSC-029 , ¶ 32, 539 P.3d 17 303 (emphasizing that it is improper for the appellate court to engage in fact-finding 18 when applying the right for any reason doctrine).

2025See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 264 (providing 14 that an appellate court may affirm a district court on reasons not considered by the 15 district court when it is not unfair to the appellant and the reasons are supported by 16 substantial evidence); accord State v. Marquez, 2023-NMSC-029 , ¶ 32, 539 P.3d 17 303 (emphasizing that it is improper for the appellate court to engage in fact-finding 18 when applying the right for any reason doctrine).

2017See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2015-NMCA-001, ¶ 29 , 340 P.3d 610 (recognizing that it is unfair to apply the right for any reason doctrine where the appellant “had no opportunity . . . to respond to the unasserted argument”). {27} Third, by applying the appropriate rule of statutory construction, Section 66-3-901 would not establish an independent criminal basis for vehicle lighting violations under the Motor Vehicle Code.

2017See Freeman v. Fairchild , 2015-NMCA-001 , ¶ 29, 340 P.3d 610 (recognizing that it is unfair to apply the right for any reason doctrine where the appellant "had no opportunity ... to respond to the unasserted argument"). {27} Third, by applying the appropriate rule of statutory construction, Section 66-3-901 would not establish an independent criminal basis for vehicle lighting violations under the Motor Vehicle Code.

2017See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2015-NMCA-001, ¶ 29 , 340 P.3d 610 (recognizing that it is unfair to apply the right for any reason doctrine where the appellant “had no opportunity . . . to respond to the unasserted argument”). {27} Third, by applying the appropriate rule of statutory construction, Section 66-3-901 would not establish an independent criminal basis for vehicle lighting violations under the Motor Vehicle Code.

2017See Freeman v. Fairchild , 2015-NMCA-001 , ¶ 29, 340 P.3d 610 (recognizing that it is unfair to apply the right for any reason doctrine where the appellant "had no opportunity ... to respond to the unasserted argument"). {27} Third, by applying the appropriate rule of statutory construction, Section 66-3-901 would not establish an independent criminal basis for vehicle lighting violations under the Motor Vehicle Code.

2018We apply the right for any reason doctrine only if doing so "is not unfair to the appellant." State v. Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007 , ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; Beggs v. City of Portales , 2013-NMCA-068 , ¶ 32, 305 P.3d 75 ("It is within this Court's discretion to affirm the district court under the 'right for any reason' doctrine, but we will not exercise such discretion if it would result in unfairness to the appellant.").

2018We apply the right for any reason doctrine only if doing so "is not unfair to the appellant." State v. Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007 , ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; Beggs v. City of Portales , 2013-NMCA-068 , ¶ 32, 305 P.3d 75 ("It is within this Court's discretion to affirm the district court under the 'right for any reason' doctrine, but we will not exercise such discretion if it would result in unfairness to the appellant.").

2024See State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶ 12 , 130 N.M. 602 , 28 P.3d 1143 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine where the trial court’s ruling required a determination on a disputed factual issue).

2024See State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060, ¶ 12 , 130 N.M. 602 , 28 P.3d 1143 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine where the trial court’s ruling required a determination on a disputed factual issue).

2024See Meiboom v. Watson, 2000- NMSC-004, ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (“This Court may affirm a district court ruling on a ground not relied upon by the district court, but will not do so if reliance on the new ground would be unfair to appellant.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {8} “Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” Jones v. N.M. Dep’t of Pub.

2024See Meiboom v. Watson, 2000- NMSC-004, ¶ 20, 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 (“This Court may affirm a district court ruling on a ground not relied upon by the district court, but will not do so if reliance on the new ground would be unfair to appellant.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {8} “Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” Jones v. N.M. Dep’t of Pub.

2025Co., 1994-NMCA-172 , ¶ 21, 119 N.M. 370 , 890 P.2d 823 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine on grounds that it would be unfair to the appellant). 1 claim” because “[t]he funds that were stolen were not in the care, custody, and 2 control of the insured”; the stolen funds “were in the care, custody, and control of 3 Wells Fargo Bank.” Although rejecting Beazley’s argument that the exclusion for 4 funds “lost, diminished, or damaged during transfer” barred coverage, the district 5 court did not state its reasoning.

2025Co., 1994-NMCA-172 , ¶ 21, 119 N.M. 370 , 890 P.2d 823 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine on grounds that it would be unfair to the appellant). 1 claim” because “[t]he funds that were stolen were not in the care, custody, and 2 control of the insured”; the stolen funds “were in the care, custody, and control of 3 Wells Fargo Bank.” Although rejecting Beazley’s argument that the exclusion for 4 funds “lost, diminished, or damaged during transfer” barred coverage, the district 5 court did not state its reasoning.

2023See State v. Gomez, 2003- NMSC-012, ¶ 7, 133 N.M. 763 , 70 P.3d 753 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine where failure of appellant to raise the issue at trial was the result of its introduction on a dispositive motion).

2023See State v. Gomez, 2003- NMSC-012, ¶ 7, 133 N.M. 763 , 70 P.3d 753 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine where failure of appellant to raise the issue at trial was the result of its introduction on a dispositive motion).

2024Compare Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 34 , 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that application of the right for any reason doctrine would be unfair where the party did not have an opportunity to substantiate their claim or controvert facts), and Paz v. Tijerina, 2007-NMCA-109, ¶ 25 , 142 N.M. 391 , 165 P.3d 1167 (stating that application of the right for any reason doctrine would be unfair where it would affirm on fact-dependent grounds not found by the district court), with Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶ 27 (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds

2023“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” Jones v. City of Albuquerque Police Dep’t, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶ 27 , 470 P.3d 252 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024Livestock Bd., 2016-NMCA-001, ¶ 29 , 363 P.3d 1222 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023See Wild Horse Observers Ass’n v. N.M. Livestock Bd., 2016-NMCA-001 , ¶ 29, 363 P.3d 1222 (“An appellate court may affirm a district court if it was right for any reason and affirming on new grounds would not be unfair to the appellant.”). {16} We also decline to address Plaintiffs’ constructive eviction argument.

2023See Lynn Hawkins v. McDonald’s, 2014-NMCA-048 , ¶ 23, 323 P.3d 932 , (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2019We previously accepted Worker’s assertion relative to the evidence presented below. [2nd CN 3] Nevertheless, as we observed in the second notice of proposed summary disposition, the evidence that Worker successfully performed the vocation of a fast food cook supports the same result. [2nd CN 3-4] See generally Hawkins v. McDonald’s, 2014-NMCA-048 , ¶ 23, 323 P.3d 932 (“[W]e [may] affirm the award of modifier-based PPD benefits under the right for any reason doctrine.”).

2018Because of its erroneous suppression ruling, the 13 district court never developed a record for this Court to review regarding the 14 inevitable discovery doctrine or the officer’s contamination of the seized evidence. 15 We apply the right for any reason doctrine only if doing so “is not unfair to the 16 appellant.” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; 17 Beggs v. City of Portales, 2013-NMCA-068, ¶ 32 , 305 P.3d 75 (“It is within this 18 Court’s discretion to affirm the district court under the ‘right for any reason’ doctrine, 19 but we will not exercise such

2018We apply the right for any reason doctrine only if doing so "is not unfair to the appellant." State v. Gallegos , 2007-NMSC-007 , ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; Beggs v. City of Portales , 2013-NMCA-068 , ¶ 32, 305 P.3d 75 ("It is within this Court's discretion to affirm the district court under the 'right for any reason' doctrine, but we will not exercise such discretion if it would result in unfairness to the appellant.").

2025See State v. Marquez, 2023-NMSC-029 , ¶ 32, 539 P.3d 303 (stating that it is generally improper to apply the right for any reason doctrine to unpreserved arguments, especially those requiring fact-finding).

2025We Will Not Affirm the District Court’s Decision as Right for Any 2 Reason 3 {7} Defendant argues that we should affirm the district court as right for any 4 reason because: (1) there was an “insufficient factual basis to infer” that the cyclist 5 seen by Officer Gordon was Defendant; and (2) Officer Gordon improperly detained 6 Defendant for a penalty assessment misdemeanor, § 66-3-701(A), under the 7 balancing test outlined in State v. Wright, 2022-NMSC-009 , ¶ 27, 503 P.3d 1161 . 8 We decline to apply the right for any reason doctrine because, as we will explain, 9 the doctrine does not app

2018See Rule 11-403 (allowing exclusion of evidence that needlessly presents cumulative evidence); State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 26 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (holding that an appellate court will affirm the district court’s decision if it is right for any reason and does not prejudice the parties); see also Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 44 (noting, after conducting harmless error analysis, affirmance based on Rule 11-403 would also be proper under the right for any reason doctrine). {29} Alternatively, even if the district court erred in refusing to admit the letters, such error was harmless

2018See Rule 11-403 (allowing exclusion of evidence that 14 needlessly presents cumulative evidence); State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007 , 15 ¶ 26, 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (holding that an appellate court will affirm the 16 district court’s decision if it is right for any reason and does not prejudice the 17 parties); see also Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 44 (noting, after conducting 18 harmless error analysis, affirmance based on Rule 11-403 would also be proper 19 under the right for any reason doctrine). 17 1 {29} Alternatively, even if the district court erred in refusing to admit the letters,

2017See State v. Blevins , 1936-NMSC-052 , ¶ 12, 40 N.M. 367 , 60 P.2d 208 (agreeing "that all of the canons of interpretation that apply to civil statutes apply to criminal statutes, ... [including] the canon that they are to be strictly construed[, therefore] ... the special statute controlled the general act, and the government had no election as to which it would proceed [to prosecute] under, the question being a judicial one").

2017See State v. Blevins , 1936-NMSC-052 , ¶ 12, 40 N.M. 367 , 60 P.2d 208 (agreeing "that all of the canons of interpretation that apply to civil statutes apply to criminal statutes, ... [including] the canon that they are to be strictly construed[, therefore] ... the special statute controlled the general act, and the government had no election as to which it would proceed [to prosecute] under, the question being a judicial one").

2024However, under the right for any reason doctrine, this Court will affirm the district court’s ultimate conclusion so long as “the circumstances do not make it unfair to the appellant to affirm.” State v. Serna, 2018-NMCA-074 , ¶ 29, 429 P.3d 1283 ; State v. Vargas, 2008- NMSC-019, ¶ 8, 143 N.M. 692 , 181 P.3d 684 (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation

2019See State v. Vargas, 2008-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 143 N.M. 692 , 181 P.3d 684 (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds not relied upon by the district court if those grounds do not require us to look beyond the factual allegations that were raised and considered below.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); cf. State v. Serna, 2018-NMCA-074 , ¶¶ 29-34, 429 P.3d 1283 (refusing to apply right for any reason, where the grounds were undeveloped on appeal and raised for the first time on appeal). {8} The district court’s order denying dismis

2024Compare Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 34 , 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that application of the right for any reason doctrine would be unfair where the party did not have an opportunity to substantiate their claim or controvert facts), and Paz v. Tijerina, 2007-NMCA-109, ¶ 25 , 142 N.M. 391 , 165 P.3d 1167 (stating that application of the right for any reason doctrine would be unfair where it would affirm on fact-dependent grounds not found by the district court), with Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶ 27 (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds

2024Compare Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 34 , 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that application of the right for any reason doctrine would be unfair where the party did not have an opportunity to substantiate their claim or controvert facts), and Paz v. Tijerina, 2007-NMCA-109, ¶ 25 , 142 N.M. 391 , 165 P.3d 1167 (stating that application of the right for any reason doctrine would be unfair where it would affirm on fact-dependent grounds not found by the district court), with Jones, 2020-NMSC-013, ¶ 27 (“Under the right for any reason doctrine, we may affirm the district court’s order on grounds

2025See State v. Celusniak, 2004-NMCA-070, ¶ 27 , 135 8 N.M. 728 , 93 P.3d 10 (concluding that the district court’s finding that the 9 defendant’s purse had been abandoned was a mixed question of fact and law). 10 Indeed, had the State argued abandonment in the district court, the State would have 11 borne the burden of proving, “by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence,” that 12 Defendant intended to abandon the backpack.

2025See State v. Celusniak, 2004-NMCA-070, ¶ 27 , 135 8 N.M. 728 , 93 P.3d 10 (concluding that the district court’s finding that the 9 defendant’s purse had been abandoned was a mixed question of fact and law). 10 Indeed, had the State argued abandonment in the district court, the State would have 11 borne the burden of proving, “by clear, unequivocal and decisive evidence,” that 12 Defendant intended to abandon the backpack.