Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
12 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 5 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. Le Miergreen2 sentences2025See 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20 , 394 P.3d 959 (“Courts must evaluate the considerations identified in [State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 15 , 150 N.M. 745 , 266 P.3d 25 ]—culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions—when deciding whether to exclude a witness and must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework articulated.”). 2025Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶¶ 16-27 ; Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20 (“Courts must evaluate the considerations identified in Harper—culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions—when deciding whether to exclude a witness and must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework articulated in Harper.”). | 3 | 10 |
State v. Harpergreen2 sentences2025See 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20 , 394 P.3d 959 (“Courts must evaluate the considerations identified in [State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 15 , 150 N.M. 745 , 266 P.3d 25 ]—culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions—when deciding whether to exclude a witness and must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework articulated.”). 2025See 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20 , 394 P.3d 959 (“Courts must evaluate the considerations identified in [State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶ 15 , 150 N.M. 745 , 266 P.3d 25 ]—culpability, prejudice, and lesser sanctions—when deciding whether to exclude a witness and must explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework articulated.”). | 2 | 5 |
United States v. Tony Ray Wicker and Vickie Silergreen1 sentence2017As one court explained, “[o]n occasion the district court may need to suppress evidence that did not comply with discovery orders to maintain the integrity and schedule of the court even though the defendant may not be prejudiced.” See United States v. Wicker, 848 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1988). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2022As we held in State v. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019 , ¶¶ 16, 18, 413 P.3d 484 , when a district court fails to explain its sanction decision in terms of the Harper factors, the record is inadequate for this Court to make a substantive review of the district court’s exercise of its discretion, and we must reverse and remand for further development of the record. {18} This is such a case. 2018The Supreme Court further stated that district courts “must 13 explain their decision to exclude or not to exclude a witness within the framework 14 articulated in Harper[.]” Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶ 20 . 15 {4} Le Mier addresses situations in which the district courts excluded witnesses as 16 a sanction, not the dismissal of the charges with prejudice as occurred in this case. 17 However, “both dismissal and witness exclusion constitute ‘extreme’ sanctions.” State 18 v. Lewis, 2018-NMCA-019 , ¶ 8, 413 P.3d 484 ; see also Harper, 2011-NMSC-044 , ¶¶ 19 16, 21 (cautioning that the exclusion of | 2 | 2018–2022 |