86 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 34 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. Vargasgreen2 sentences2024However, 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 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 | 22 | 30 |
Freeman v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences2025See 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). 2024See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023 , 7 ¶ 35, 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that the case was not well-suited to the application 8 of the right for any reason doctrine because in part “[t]he appellate court would need 9 to undertake a fact-dependent inquiry to accurately determine whether [a party] 10 made a sufficient prima facie showing under [particular] law”). | 13 | 14 |
Jerald W. Freeman, the Tea Leaf Inc. v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences2025See 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). 2024See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023 , 7 ¶ 35, 416 P.3d 264 (concluding that the case was not well-suited to the application 8 of the right for any reason doctrine because in part “[t]he appellate court would need 9 to undertake a fact-dependent inquiry to accurately determine whether [a party] 10 made a sufficient prima facie showing under [particular] law”). | 12 | 14 |
Freeman v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences2023See 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); see also Franks, 1994-NMCA-097 , ¶ 8 (declining to affirm a suppression order on fact-dependent grounds); Freeman, 2015-NMCA-001, ¶ 29 (declining to affirm under the right for any reason doctrine where the facts extend beyond those raised in the district court). {36} We conclude that it would be unfair to Defendant to apply the right for any reason doctrine in this case. 2023See State v. Sanchez, 2001-NMCA-060 , ¶ 17 12, 130 N.M. 602 , 28 P.3d 1143 (declining to apply the right for any reason doctrine 18 where the trial court’s ruling required a determination on a disputed factual issue); 19 see also Franks, 1994-NMCA-097 , ¶ 8 (declining to affirm a suppression order on 25 1 fact-dependent grounds); Freeman, 2015-NMCA-001, ¶ 29 (declining to affirm 2 under the right for any reason doctrine where the facts extend beyond those raised 3 in the district court). 4 {36} We conclude that it would be unfair to Defendant to apply the right for any 5 reason doctrine in thi | 6 | 6 |
Meiboom v. Watsongreen2 sentences2024See 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. 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. | 3 | 7 |
State v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2018We 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."). | 3 | 7 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2023See 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). | 3 | 4 |
Hawkins v. McDonald'sgreen2 sentences2023See 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)). 2020See 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)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Sanchezgreen2 sentences2024See 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). | 3 | 3 |
Eldin v. Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurancegreen2 sentences2025Co., 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. | 2 | 4 |
Jones v. N.M. Dep't of Public Safetygreen2 sentences2024Compare 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). | 2 | 3 |
Atherton v. Gopingreen2 sentences2022See Freeman v. Fairchild, 2018-NMSC-023, ¶ 30 , 416 P.3d 264 (“When applying the right for any reason rationale, appellate courts must be careful not to assume the role of the trial court by delving into fact-dependent inquiries.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); Atherton v. Gopin, 2015-NMCA-003, ¶ 36 , 340 P.3d 630 ; see also State v. Serna, 2018-NMCA-074 , ¶¶ 32-34, 429 P.3d 1283 (declining to decide an undeveloped, right for any reason argument); State v. Randy J., 2011-NMCA-105, ¶¶ 27-30 , 150 N.M. 683 , 265 P.3d 734 (same). 2018See Atherton , 2015-NMCA-003 , ¶¶ 33-39, 340 P.3d 630 (declining to "comb the record" and concluding that the district court was best situated to consider the plaintiffs' claims on a fuller record). {36} We hold that the Court of Appeals abused its direction in applying the right for any reason doctrine to affirm the district court. | 2 | 3 |
Beggs v. City of Portalesgreen2 sentences2018Because 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."). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Marquezgreen2 sentences2025We 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 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). | 2 | 2 |
Paz v. Tijerinagreen2 sentences2024Compare 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 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Astorgagreen2 sentences2018See 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, | 2 | 2 |
State v. Blevinsgreen2 sentences2017See 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"). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sernagreen2 sentences2024However, 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 | 1 | 3 |
State v. Celusniakgreen2 sentences2025See 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. | 1 | 1 |
| Felts v. CLK Management, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Montanogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Apodaca v. AAA Gas Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ruizgreen | 1 | 1 |
| California v. Ciraologreen | 1 | 1 |
| Heath Ex Rel. Holdyn H. v. La Mariana Apartmentsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Salasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Salasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Silvagreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Farishgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Webbgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Maralex Resources, Inc. v. Gilbreathgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McNealgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jaramillo v. Jaramillogreen | 1 | 1 |
| FIRST NAT. BANK IN ALBUQUERQUE v. Abrahamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Matter of Estate of Farringtongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Fairbanksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Perrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Morris v. Merchantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sanchezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harrisgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Connick v. County of Bernalillo
green
2 sentences2014However, we glean some guidance from our decisions in Jeffrey, Connick v. County of Bernalillo, 1998-NMCA-060 , 125 N.M. 119 , 957 P.2d 1153 , and most recently, Cordova v. KSL-Union, 2012-NMCA-083 , 285 P.3d 686 , cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-007 , 295 P.3d 599 . 2014However, we glean some guidance from our decisions in Jeffrey, Connick v. County of Bernalillo, 1998-NMCA-060 , 125 N.M. 119 , 957 P.2d 1153 , and most recently, Cordova v. KSL-Union, 2012-NMCA-083 , 285 P.3d 686 , cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-007 , 295 P.3d 599 . | 3 | 2013–2014 |
Cordova v. KSL-Union
green
2 sentences2014However, we glean some guidance from our decisions in Jeffrey, Connick v. County of Bernalillo, 1998-NMCA-060 , 125 N.M. 119 , 957 P.2d 1153 , and most recently, Cordova v. KSL-Union, 2012-NMCA-083 , 285 P.3d 686 , cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-007 , 295 P.3d 599 . 2013However, we glean some guidance from our decisions in Jeffrey, Connick v. County of Bernalillo, 1998-NMCA-060 , 125 N.M. 119 , 957 P.2d 1153 , and most recently, Cordova v. KSL-Union, 2012-NMCA-083 , 285 P.3d 686 , cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-007 , 295 P.3d 599 . | 3 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Randy J.
green
2 sentences2023“The mere assertions and arguments of counsel are not evidence.” See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 . 32, 150 N.M. 683 , 265 P.3d 734 (relying on the right for any reason doctrine in deciding whether to affirm a district court’s suppression ruling). {5} “The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area searched. 2023“The mere assertions and arguments of counsel are not evidence.” See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 51 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 . 32, 150 N.M. 683 , 265 P.3d 734 (relying on the right for any reason doctrine in deciding whether to affirm a district court’s suppression ruling). {5} “The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is whether a person has a constitutionally protected reasonable expectation of privacy” in the area searched. | 2 | 2022–2023 |
Cordova v. World Finance Corp. of NM
green
2 sentences2011Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 18 , 146 N.M. 256 , 208 P.3d 901 ; see 18 Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 20 , 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 19 (reasoning that when applying a right for any reason doctrine, appellate courts will not 15 1 assume the district court’s role and delve into fact-dependent inquiries). 2011Corp. of N.M., 2009-NMSC-021, ¶ 18 , 146 N.M. 256 , 208 P.3d 901 ; see 18 Meiboom v. Watson, 2000-NMSC-004, ¶ 20 , 128 N.M. 536 , 994 P.2d 1154 19 (reasoning that when applying a right for any reason doctrine, appellate courts will not 15 1 assume the district court’s role and delve into fact-dependent inquiries). | 2 | 2011–2018 |
Garcia-Montoya v. State Treasurer's Office
green
2 sentences2018"If there is the slightest doubt as to the existence of material factual issues, summary judgment should be denied." Garcia-Montoya v. State Treasurer's Office , 2001-NMSC-003 , ¶ 7, 130 N.M. 25 , 16 P.3d 1084 . {35} Finally, we conclude that this case is not well-suited to application of the right for any reason doctrine due to the voluminous record on appeal and the fact-dependent nature of Fairchild's cross-claims. 2018"If there is the slightest doubt as to the existence of material factual issues, summary judgment should be denied." Garcia-Montoya v. State Treasurer's Office , 2001-NMSC-003 , ¶ 7, 130 N.M. 25 , 16 P.3d 1084 . {35} Finally, we conclude that this case is not well-suited to application of the right for any reason doctrine due to the voluminous record on appeal and the fact-dependent nature of Fairchild's cross-claims. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Romero
green
2 sentences2011Evidence supporting the instruction {22} “We review de novo the question of whether there was evidence to support an instruction on intoxication as a defense.” State v. Romero, 1998-NMCA-057, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 161 , 958 P.2d 119 . “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction.” Id. {23} “It is settled law that [a] showing of intoxication is a defense to a specific intent crime where the intoxication is to such a degree as would negate the possibility of the necessary intent.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Ejvidence 2011Evidence supporting the instruction {22} “We review de novo the question of whether there was evidence to support an instruction on intoxication as a defense.” State v. Romero, 1998-NMCA-057, ¶ 22 , 125 N.M. 161 , 958 P.2d 119 . “[W]e view the evidence in the light most favorable to giving the instruction.” Id. {23} “It is settled law that [a] showing of intoxication is a defense to a specific intent crime where the intoxication is to such a degree as would negate the possibility of the necessary intent.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Ejvidence | 2 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Lohberger
green
2 sentences2025We are not persuaded by Defendant’s contention since the district court’s order explicitly dismissed the charges against Defendant “pursuant to Section 31-9-1.2(A).” See State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 34 , 144 N.M. 297 , 187 P.3d 162 (stating that our Supreme Court has long insisted that an appeal be taken “only from a written order or judgment . . . based on the very practical need for clarity in ascertaining when a case has been disposed of, and by whom, and for what reason”). 2025We are not persuaded by Defendant’s contention since the district court’s order explicitly dismissed the charges against Defendant “pursuant to Section 31-9-1.2(A).” See State v. Lohberger, 2008-NMSC-033, ¶ 34 , 144 N.M. 297 , 187 P.3d 162 (stating that our Supreme Court has long insisted that an appeal be taken “only from a written order or judgment . . . based on the very practical need for clarity in ascertaining when a case has been disposed of, and by whom, and for what reason”). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Granville
green
2 sentences2025We 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 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 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Paananen
green
1 sentence2025The Inventory Search Violated the New Mexico Constitution 6 A. Standard of Review 7 {11} When an appeal of a suppression ruling involves “a mixed question of law 8 and fact,” State v. Paananen, 2015-NMSC-031, ¶ 10 , 357 P.3d 958 (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted), we review “factual matters with deference to 10 the district court’s findings if substantial evidence exists to support them,” and we 11 review “the district court’s application of the law de novo.” State v. Almanzar, 2014- 12 NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 316 P.3d 183 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Granville
green
1 sentence2025We 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 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Wright
green
1 sentence2025We 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 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Wild Horse Observers Ass'n, Inc. v. N.M. Livestock Bd green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Muse v. Muse green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Cadle Co. v. Seavall green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Acosta green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State Ex Rel. Barela v. New Mexico State Board of Education green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Gathman-Matotan Architects & Planners, Inc. v. State green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Martinez green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Lewis green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Hennessy v. Duryea green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Tollardo green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Garza green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.