86 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2026 27 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. Bernalgreen2 sentences2024Therefore, we reaffirm our conclusion in Bernal that “we are doing a substantially similar analysis when we conduct a unitary conduct inquiry in double description cases as when we conduct a unit-of-prosecution inquiry.” Id. {14} If a defendant’s acts are sufficiently distinct, “then we will presume that the defendant has not received more punishments than were statutorily authorized.” Benally, 2021-NMSC-027, ¶ 23 . 2024Therefore, we reaffirm our conclusion in Bernal that “we are doing a substantially 8 similar analysis when we conduct a unitary conduct inquiry in double description 9 cases as when we conduct a unit-of-prosecution inquiry.” Id. 10 {14} If a defendant’s acts are sufficiently distinct, “then we will presume that the 11 defendant has not received more punishments than were statutorily authorized.” 12 Benally, 2021-NMSC-027, ¶ 23 . | 8 | 29 |
Herron v. Stategreen2 sentences2020“The rule of lenity requires that we interpret the statute in the defendant’s favor by invoking the presumption that the Legislature did not intend to create separately punishable offenses.” Id. {23} Here, it is undisputed that we are only concerned with the second part of the unit of prosecution inquiry—distinctness. 2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 3 278 P.3d 1031 (stating that appellate courts will not address arguments where 4 parties failed to develop them “with any principled analysis”); State v. Demongey, 5 2008-NMCA-066, ¶ 10 , 144 N.M. 333 , 187 P.3d 679 (proceeding to second step of 6 the unit-of-prosecution analysis where “neither party argues that the unit of 7 prosecution is clearly defined in the relevant criminal statutes”). 8 {7} To determine whether Defendant’s acts are sufficiently distinct to support 9 multiple convictions, we look to factors adopted by our Supreme Court in Herr | 8 | 13 |
State v. Gallegosgreen2 sentences2023In analyzing a unit of 10 prosecution claim, the relevant inquiry is “whether the [L]egislature intended 11 punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” Swafford, 1991- 12 NMSC-043, ¶ 8. 13 {29} This Court originally applied the unit of prosecution analysis to the conspiracy 14 statute, § 30-28-2, in Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 43-64 . 2023In analyzing a unit of prosecution claim, the relevant inquiry is “whether the [L]egislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” Swafford, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 8. {29} This Court originally applied the unit of prosecution analysis to the conspiracy statute, § 30-28-2, in Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 43-64 . | 7 | 13 |
Swafford v. Stategreen2 sentences2024With respect to tampering with evidence convictions, we apply the unit of prosecution analysis and examine whether a defendant has been improperly punished for “multiple violations of a single statute based on a single course of conduct.” Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC- 043, ¶ 8, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 . 2024With respect to tampering with evidence convictions, we apply the unit of prosecution analysis and examine whether a defendant has been improperly punished for “multiple violations of a single statute based on a single course of conduct.” Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC- 043, ¶ 8, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 . | 7 | 10 |
State v. Swickgreen2 sentences2024State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 747 . 17 A. Defendant’s Convictions for CSP Violate Double Jeopardy 18 {12} Defendant first raises a unit of prosecution challenge to his three convictions 19 for CSP. 2021State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 6 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . {19} “We apply a unit-of-prosecution analysis because we are examining multiple convictions under the same statute.” State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 33 , 279 P.3d 747 . | 3 | 9 |
State v. Morrogreen2 sentences2022Cf. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 22 (noting potential inconsistency between the unit-of-prosecution analysis and the single-larceny doctrine because “[t]he single-larceny doctrine is a departure from the general rule that multiple charges are appropriate when there are multiple victims”). 2022Cf. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 22 (noting potential 15 inconsistency between the unit-of-prosecution analysis and the single-larceny 16 doctrine because “[t]he single-larceny doctrine is a departure from the general rule 17 that multiple charges are appropriate when there are multiple victims”). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2003II, § 15; State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-018, ¶ 10 , 123 N.M. 124 , 934 P.2d 1053 (stating that the doctrine generally applies when the takings are with “a single continuing criminal impulse or intent pursuant to a general larcenous scheme or plan”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶¶ 21-23 , 127 N.M. 763 , 987 P.2d 420 (discussing history of recognizing larceny as a single offense in New Mexico); State v. Brown, 113 N.M. 631, 632-34 , 830 P.2d 183, 184-86 (Ct.App.1992) (recognizing validity of the single larceny doctrine based on the appropriate unit o 2003II, § 15; State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-018, ¶ 10 , 123 N.M. 124 , 934 P.2d 1053 (stating that the doctrine generally applies when the takings are with “a single continuing criminal impulse or intent pursuant to a general larcenous scheme or plan”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶¶ 21-23 , 127 N.M. 763 , 987 P.2d 420 (discussing history of recognizing larceny as a single offense in New Mexico); State v. Brown, 113 N.M. 631, 632-34 , 830 P.2d 183, 184-86 (Ct.App.1992) (recognizing validity of the single larceny doctrine based on the appropriate unit o | 3 | 3 |
State v. Guerragreen2 sentences2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 3 278 P.3d 1031 (stating that appellate courts will not address arguments where 4 parties failed to develop them “with any principled analysis”); State v. Demongey, 5 2008-NMCA-066, ¶ 10 , 144 N.M. 333 , 187 P.3d 679 (proceeding to second step of 6 the unit-of-prosecution analysis where “neither party argues that the unit of 7 prosecution is clearly defined in the relevant criminal statutes”). 8 {7} To determine whether Defendant’s acts are sufficiently distinct to support 9 multiple convictions, we look to factors adopted by our Supreme Court in Herr 2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (stating that appellate courts will not address arguments where parties failed to develop them “with any principled analysis”); State v. Demongey, 2008-NMCA- 066, ¶ 10, 144 N.M. 333 , 187 P.3d 679 (proceeding to second step of the unit-of- prosecution analysis where “neither party argues that the unit of prosecution is clearly defined in the relevant criminal statutes”). {15} In this case, the indicia of distinctness do not justify convicting Defendant of multiple acts of intimidation. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Bernardgreen2 sentences2021Defendants argue that their convictions for reckless child abuse resulted from unitary conduct under the same statute and, as such, we apply a unit of prosecution analysis. {36} “The relevant inquiry in a unit of prosecution case is whether the Legislature intended [the] punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” State v. Bernard, 2015-NMCA-089, ¶ 17 , 355 P.3d 831 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2021Defendants argue that their convictions for reckless child abuse resulted from unitary conduct under the same statute and, as such, we apply a unit of prosecution analysis. {36} “The relevant inquiry in a unit of prosecution case is whether the Legislature intended [the] punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” State v. Bernard, 2015-NMCA-089, ¶ 17 , 355 P.3d 831 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 2 | 9 |
State v. DeGraffgreen2 sentences2013State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 2 450, 134 P.3d 737 . 3 Defendant argues that double jeopardy was violated because he was charged 4 with multiple violations of the same statute based upon a single course of conduct. 5 See Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 28-50 (recognizing the unit of prosecution test for 6 multiple charges under the conspiracy statute); State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011 , 7 ¶ 25, 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 (holding that there are two types of double jeopardy 8 cases with regard to multiple punishments: (1) when a defendant is charged with 9 multiple violations of t 2013State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 2 450, 134 P.3d 737 . 3 Defendant argues that double jeopardy was violated because he was charged 4 with multiple violations of the same statute based upon a single course of conduct. 5 See Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 28-50 (recognizing the unit of prosecution test for 6 multiple charges under the conspiracy statute); State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011 , 7 ¶ 25, 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 (holding that there are two types of double jeopardy 8 cases with regard to multiple punishments: (1) when a defendant is charged with 9 multiple violations of t | 2 | 6 |
State v. Olssongreen2 sentences2021After applying the rule of lenity to our interpretation of the statute’s unit of prosecution, we then turn to the second step of our analysis in which we consider “whether a defendant’s acts are separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify multiple punishments.” Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, ¶ 18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {17} “Under the second step of the unit-of-prosecution analysis, we ‘determine whether a defendant’s acts are separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify multiple punishments under the same statute.’” State v. Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-00 2019Compare State v. Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, ¶¶ 3, 47 , 324 P.3d 1230 (considering whether possession of multiple, distinct images of child pornography were separately punishable acts or “one unitary act of possession[,]” and concluding that the defendants could “only be charged with one count of possession”), and Tidey, 2018-NMCA-014, ¶¶ 9, 15 (applying a unit-of-prosecution analysis to determine whether the simultaneous possession of two different types of drug paraphernalia constituted “one unitary act” or separately punishable acts, and concluding that possession of two items of contraband was | 2 | 6 |
State v. Melendrezgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Melendrez, 2014-NMCA-062, ¶ 6 , 326 P.3d 1126 (stating that a “unit of prosecution” double jeopardy case is one in which the defendant is charged with multiple violations of the same statute). 2020See State v. Melendrez, 2014-NMCA-062, ¶ 6 , 326 P.3d 1126 (stating that a “unit of prosecution” double jeopardy case is one in which the defendant is charged with multiple violations of the same statute). {11} In considering a unit of prosecution claim, we first examine “whether the [L]egislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 8, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Benallygreen2 sentences2026State v. Benally, 2021-NMSC-027 , 2 ¶ 11, 493 P.3d 366 . 3 {69} Defendant was convicted of multiple violations of the same statute; thus, we 4 examine his double jeopardy claim using a unit-of-prosecution analysis. 2026State v. Benally, 2021-NMSC-027 , 2 ¶ 11, 493 P.3d 366 . 3 {69} Defendant was convicted of multiple violations of the same statute; thus, we 4 examine his double jeopardy claim using a unit-of-prosecution analysis. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2023But see State v. Garcia, 2009- NMCA-107, ¶ 8, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (evaluating the defendant’s convictions for two batteries, one simple under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (1963), and one aggravated under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(C) (1969), using a unit-of-prosecution analysis). 2023But see State v. Garcia, 2009- NMCA-107, ¶ 8, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (evaluating the defendant’s convictions for two batteries, one simple under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (1963), and one aggravated under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(C) (1969), using a unit-of-prosecution analysis). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Boergadinegreen2 sentences2007Herron v. State, 111 N.M. 357, 361 , 805 P.2d 624, 628 (1991); Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, ¶ 21 , 137 N.M. 92 , 107 P.3d 532 . “[N]one of these factors alone is a panacea.” Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, ¶ 21 , 137 N.M. 92 , 107 P.3d 532 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {7} Under the first part of the two-step unit of prosecution analysis, based on questions raised by the parties as to the clarity and purpose of the statute, we conclude that the statute does not clearly define the unit of prosecution. 2007Herron v. State, 111 N.M. 357, 361 , 805 P.2d 624, 628 (1991); Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, ¶ 21 , 137 N.M. 92 , 107 P.3d 532 . “[N]one of these factors alone is a panacea.” Boergadine, 2005-NMCA-028, ¶ 21 , 137 N.M. 92 , 107 P.3d 532 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {7} Under the first part of the two-step unit of prosecution analysis, based on questions raised by the parties as to the clarity and purpose of the statute, we conclude that the statute does not clearly define the unit of prosecution. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Olssongreen2 sentences2020While our courts often go no further than evaluating the plain language of the statute, see, e.g., Olsson I, 2008-NMCA-009, ¶ 5 (stating that we proceed to the second step only if “the legislative intent is unclear after simply looking to the statute”), in Herron, the Court also considered whether the legislative and statutory history provided guidance on the Legislature’s intended unit of prosecution. 2011Olsson, 2008-NMCA-009, ¶ 9 , 143 N.M. 351 , 176 P.3d 340 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. McClendongreen2 sentences2019This is an appropriate concern. {52} “The Double Jeopardy Clause . . . protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[O]nce past the unit of prosecution test, a properly instructed jury must still find, subject to our traditional deferential review, that substantial evidence supports each separate [conviction].” State v. Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 50 , 149 N.M. 704 , 254 P.3d 655 . “[O]ur primary concern in this context is to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to establish that each pen 2019This is an appropriate concern. {52} “The Double Jeopardy Clause . . . protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165 (1977) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[O]nce past the unit of prosecution test, a properly instructed jury must still find, subject to our traditional deferential review, that substantial evidence supports each separate [conviction].” State v. Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 50 , 149 N.M. 704 , 254 P.3d 655 . “[O]ur primary concern in this context is to ensure that sufficient evidence exists to establish that each pen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Torresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sangre De Cristo Development Corp. v. City of Santa Fegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Floresgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Tideygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pisiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pritchardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Salazargreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2023But see State v. Garcia, 2009- NMCA-107, ¶ 8, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (evaluating the defendant’s convictions for two batteries, one simple under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (1963), and one aggravated under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(C) (1969), using a unit-of-prosecution analysis). 2023But see State v. Garcia, 2009- NMCA-107, ¶ 8, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (evaluating the defendant’s convictions for two batteries, one simple under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-4 (1963), and one aggravated under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3-5(C) (1969), using a unit-of-prosecution analysis). | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Alvarez-Lopez
green
2 sentences2020As Justice Minzner wrote in Alvarez-Lopez, the single-larceny doctrine applies only where the Legislature’s intent regarding multiple punishments is unclear—meaning, in practice, that the doctrine can only apply after engaging in the first step of the unit of prosecution analysis and only then if the Legislature’s intent remains ambiguous. 2004-NMSC-030, ¶ 43 . 2005Cf. State v. Alvarez-Lopez, 2004-NMSC-030, ¶¶ 37-44 , 136 N.M. 309 , 98 P.3d 699 (discussing a unit of prosecution claim based on separate larceny convictions for general property and firearms), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 1334 , 161 L.Ed.2d 162 (2005). | 6 | 2005–2022 |
State v. Ramirez
green
2 sentences2024In Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-003, ¶ 3 , the defendant fired a gun into a vehicle with three children inside and was charged with three separate counts of child abuse, contrary to Section 30-6-1(D)(1) (providing that “[a]buse of a child consists of a person . . . causing or permitting a child to be . . . placed in a situation that may endanger the child’s life or health”). 2021After applying the rule of lenity to our interpretation of the statute’s unit of prosecution, we then turn to the second step of our analysis in which we consider “whether a defendant’s acts are separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify multiple punishments.” Olsson, 2014-NMSC-012, ¶ 18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {17} “Under the second step of the unit-of-prosecution analysis, we ‘determine whether a defendant’s acts are separated by sufficient indicia of distinctness to justify multiple punishments under the same statute.’” State v. Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-00 | 5 | 2020–2024 |
State v. Demongey
green
2 sentences2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 3 278 P.3d 1031 (stating that appellate courts will not address arguments where 4 parties failed to develop them “with any principled analysis”); State v. Demongey, 5 2008-NMCA-066, ¶ 10 , 144 N.M. 333 , 187 P.3d 679 (proceeding to second step of 6 the unit-of-prosecution analysis where “neither party argues that the unit of 7 prosecution is clearly defined in the relevant criminal statutes”). 8 {7} To determine whether Defendant’s acts are sufficiently distinct to support 9 multiple convictions, we look to factors adopted by our Supreme Court in Herr 2019See State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 3 278 P.3d 1031 (stating that appellate courts will not address arguments where 4 parties failed to develop them “with any principled analysis”); State v. Demongey, 5 2008-NMCA-066, ¶ 10 , 144 N.M. 333 , 187 P.3d 679 (proceeding to second step of 6 the unit-of-prosecution analysis where “neither party argues that the unit of 7 prosecution is clearly defined in the relevant criminal statutes”). 8 {7} To determine whether Defendant’s acts are sufficiently distinct to support 9 multiple convictions, we look to factors adopted by our Supreme Court in Herr | 3 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Rodriguez
green
2 sentences2013State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 2 450, 134 P.3d 737 . 3 Defendant argues that double jeopardy was violated because he was charged 4 with multiple violations of the same statute based upon a single course of conduct. 5 See Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 28-50 (recognizing the unit of prosecution test for 6 multiple charges under the conspiracy statute); State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011 , 7 ¶ 25, 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 (holding that there are two types of double jeopardy 8 cases with regard to multiple punishments: (1) when a defendant is charged with 9 multiple violations of t 2013State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 2 450, 134 P.3d 737 . 3 Defendant argues that double jeopardy was violated because he was charged 4 with multiple violations of the same statute based upon a single course of conduct. 5 See Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 28-50 (recognizing the unit of prosecution test for 6 multiple charges under the conspiracy statute); State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011 , 7 ¶ 25, 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 (holding that there are two types of double jeopardy 8 cases with regard to multiple punishments: (1) when a defendant is charged with 9 multiple violations of t | 3 | 2012–2013 |
State v. Frazier
green
2 sentences2013The State contends that the separate guilty verdict of shooting at a dwelling as charged in Count 2, which relates to the injured victim and not to the decedent, does not result in a double jeopardy violation because, as we stated in Frazier, “if the facts support multiple charges of a particular felony which can be sustained under a unit-of-prosecution analysis, then the State is free to use one of those charges as the predicate felony and obtain separate convictions for the other charges.” 2007-NMSC-032, ¶ 27 . 2013The State contends that the separate guilty verdict of shooting at a dwelling as charged in Count 2, which relates to the injured victim and not to the decedent, does not result in a double jeopardy violation because, as we stated in Frazier, “if the facts support multiple charges of a particular felony which can be sustained under a unit-of-prosecution analysis, then the State is free to use one of those charges as the predicate felony and obtain separate convictions for the other charges.” 2007-NMSC-032, ¶ 27 . | 3 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Barr
green
2 sentences2011Barr, 1999-NMCA-081 , ¶ 14 [ 127 N.M. 504 , 984 P.2d 185 ], Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050 , ¶ 14, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . {32} We are mindful that both stages of the unit of prosecution analysis turn on legislative intent. 2011Barr, 1999-NMCA-081 , ¶ 14 [ 127 N.M. 504 , 984 P.2d 185 ], Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050 , ¶ 14, 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 . {32} We are mindful that both stages of the unit of prosecution analysis turn on legislative intent. | 3 | 2005–2011 |
Torres v. Santistevan
neutral
2 sentences2023One form of 13 protection, known as a unit-of-prosecution claim, arises “when an individual is 14 convicted of multiple violations of the same criminal statute.” See Torres v. 15 Santistevan, 2023-NMSC-021 , ¶ 28, 536 P.3d 465 (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted). 2023“In analyzing a unit of prosecution claim, the relevant inquiry is 17 whether the Legislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for 18 each discrete act.” Id. (text only). | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Castañeda
green
2 sentences2017In State v. Castañeda, the Court correctly 2 identified the two-step unit-of-prosecution analysis, but skipped step one without 3 explanation. 2001-NMCA-052, ¶¶ 12-18 , 130 N.M. 679 , 30 P.3d 368 . 2017In State v. Castañeda, the Court correctly identified the two-step unit- of-prosecution analysis, but skipped step one without explanation. 2001-NMCA-052 , ¶¶ 12- 18, 130 N.M. 679 , 30 P.3d 368 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Castaneda
green
2 sentences2017In State v. Castañeda, the Court correctly 2 identified the two-step unit-of-prosecution analysis, but skipped step one without 3 explanation. 2001-NMCA-052, ¶¶ 12-18 , 130 N.M. 679 , 30 P.3d 368 . 2017In State v. Castañeda, the Court correctly 2 identified the two-step unit-of-prosecution analysis, but skipped step one without 3 explanation. 2001-NMCA-052, ¶¶ 12-18 , 130 N.M. 679 , 30 P.3d 368 . | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2015Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060, ¶ 11 . 2015Watkins, 2008-NMCA-060, ¶ 11 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Cooper
green
2 sentences2024See, e.g., State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 27 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 (considering whether one crime had been completed before another was committed); State v. Cooper, 1997-NMSC-058, ¶¶ 60-61 , 124 N.M. 277 , 949 P.2d 660 (considering the initial use of force against a victim as separable by “an intervening event” from subsequent but different uses of force and weapons that resulted in the victim’s death). 2024See, e.g., State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 27 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 (considering whether one crime had been completed before another was committed); State v. Cooper, 1997-NMSC-058, ¶¶ 60-61 , 124 N.M. 277 , 949 P.2d 660 (considering the initial use of force against a victim as separable by “an intervening event” from subsequent but different uses of force and weapons that resulted in the victim’s death). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Ervin
green
2 sentences2023“The relevant inquiry in a unit of prosecution case is whether the Legislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” State v. Bernard, 2015-NMCA-089, ¶ 17 , 355 P.3d 831 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {14} Section 30-9-13(A) defines criminal sexual contact of a minor as the “unlawful and intentional touching of or applying force to the intimate parts of a minor or the unlawful and intentional causing of a minor to touch one’s intimate parts.” “That language is ambiguous in our determination of whether the [L]egislature i 2023“The relevant inquiry in a unit of prosecution case is whether the Legislature intended punishment for the entire course of conduct or for each discrete act.” State v. Bernard, 2015-NMCA-089, ¶ 17 , 355 P.3d 831 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {14} Section 30-9-13(A) defines criminal sexual contact of a minor as the “unlawful and intentional touching of or applying force to the intimate parts of a minor or the unlawful and intentional causing of a minor to touch one’s intimate parts.” “That language is ambiguous in our determination of whether the [L]egislature i | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Carson green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Crocco
green
1 sentence2023State v. Crocco, 2014-NMSC-016, ¶ 15 , 327 P.3d 1068 (“Without an adequate record, an appellate court cannot determine that trial counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance.”). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Comitz green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Sena green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Comitz green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Delta Automatic Systems, Inc. v. Bingham green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Glascock green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Santillanes green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Sena green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Glascock green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Salazar green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Collins green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Dombos green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| New Mexico v. Alvarez-Lopez green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Aquamar S. A. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Baca green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.