undeveloped claim in New Mexico

2025See State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMCA-032 , ¶ 48, 446 P.3d 1205 (declining to review an undeveloped claim because “we will not review unclear arguments, or guess at what a party’s arguments might be” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2024See State v. Candelaria, 2019- NMCA-032, ¶ 48, 446 P.3d 1205 (declining to review an undeveloped claim because “we will not review unclear arguments, or guess at what a party’s arguments might be” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {18} Defendant contends that the district court also erred by excluding the levels of alcohol and fentanyl in Victim’s body at his time of death.

2023See State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMCA-032 , ¶ 48, 446 P.3d 1205 (declining to address an undeveloped claim); see also State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (providing that appellate courts are under no obligation to review undeveloped arguments). {8} Anticipating that we might conclude the district court did not err in determining the brother to be an alibi witness, Defendant, relying on McCarty v. State, 1988-NMSC- 079, 107 N.M. 651 , 763 P.2d 360 , argues that the district court nonetheless erred in (holding that an issue may be deemed conceded where the reply brief was silent re

2023See State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMCA-032 , ¶ 48, 446 P.3d 1205 (declining to address an undeveloped claim); see also State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (providing that appellate courts are under no obligation to review undeveloped arguments). impede the fact-finding process.” Petitioner does not challenge this finding and does not otherwise convince us that the AHO was unable to evaluate the officer’s credibility in this case.

2023See State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMCA-032 , ¶ 48, 446 P.3d 1205 (declining to address an undeveloped claim); see also State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (providing that appellate courts are under no obligation to review undeveloped arguments). {8} Anticipating that we might conclude the district court did not err in determining the brother to be an alibi witness, Defendant, relying on McCarty v. State, 1988-NMSC- 079, 107 N.M. 651 , 763 P.2d 360 , argues that the district court nonetheless erred in (holding that an issue may be deemed conceded where the reply brief was silent re

2023See State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMCA-032 , ¶ 48, 446 P.3d 1205 (declining to address an undeveloped claim); see also State v. Guerra, 2012-NMSC-014, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 1031 (providing that appellate courts are under no obligation to review undeveloped arguments). {8} Anticipating that we might conclude the district court did not err in determining the brother to be an alibi witness, Defendant, relying on McCarty v. State, 1988-NMSC- 079, 107 N.M. 651 , 763 P.2d 360 , argues that the district court nonetheless erred in (holding that an issue may be deemed conceded where the reply brief was silent re

2020See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (rejecting the appellant’s “surface presentation[]” of an issue and stating that “[w]e will not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments”); Headley v. Morgan Mgmt.

2020See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72 , 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (rejecting the appellant’s “surface presentation[]” of an issue and stating that “[w]e will not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments”); Headley v. Morgan Mgmt.