discretion to review claim in New Mexico

11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 7 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Trujillogreen nm · 2002 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2025 2 sentences 2022See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (providing that, when an issue of prosecutorial misconduct has not been preserved by a timely objection at trial, the appellate court has the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error). {4} To qualify as fundamental error, prosecutorial action must have been “so egregious” and have “had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citation o 2022See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (providing that, when an issue of prosecutorial misconduct has not been preserved by a timely objection at trial, the appellate court has the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error). {4} To qualify as fundamental error, prosecutorial action must have been “so egregious” and have “had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citation o	3	4
State v. Astorgagreen nmctapp · 2015 · cited in 5 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2020–2025 2 sentences 2025A. Standard of Review for Fundamental Error {14} “Under the doctrine of fundamental error, an appellate court has the discretion to review an error that was not preserved in the trial court to determine if a defendant’s conviction shocks the conscience because either (1) the defendant is indisputably innocent, or (2) a mistake in the process makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the apparent guilt of the accused.” State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 14 , 343 P.3d 1245 (alternation, internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2022Fundamental Error {25} Defendant claims “it was fundamental error for the [district] court to admit the drugs despite a deficient chain of custody.” The State asserts that the exhibit was authenticated and that its admission did not result in fundamental error. {26} “Under the doctrine of fundamental error, an appellate court has the discretion to review an error that was not preserved in the [district] court to determine if a defendant’s conviction shocks the conscience because either (1) the defendant is indisputably innocent, or (2) a mistake in the process makes a conviction fundamentally	1	5
State v. Allengreen nm · 1999 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (providing that, when an issue of prosecutorial misconduct has not been preserved by a timely objection at trial, the appellate court has the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error). {4} To qualify as fundamental error, prosecutorial action must have been “so egregious” and have “had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citation o 2022See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (providing that, when an issue of prosecutorial misconduct has not been preserved by a timely objection at trial, the appellate court has the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error). {4} To qualify as fundamental error, prosecutorial action must have been “so egregious” and have “had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citation o	1	1
State v. Wildgrubegreen nmctapp · 2003 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 2 sentences 2021See State v. Wildgrube, 2003- NMCA-108, ¶ 20, 134 N.M. 262 , 75 P.3d 862 (stating that when a prosecutorial misconduct “claim has not been properly preserved by a specific and timely objection at trial, we have the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error”); see also Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 (explaining that the “[f]ailure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error[,]” which can arise when a “prosecutor engages in misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (in 2021See State v. Wildgrube, 2003- NMCA-108, ¶ 20, 134 N.M. 262 , 75 P.3d 862 (stating that when a prosecutorial misconduct “claim has not been properly preserved by a specific and timely objection at trial, we have the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error”); see also Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 (explaining that the “[f]ailure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error[,]” which can arise when a “prosecutor engages in misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (in	1	1
State v. Rojogreen nm · 1998 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2021–2021 1 sentence 2021See State v. Wildgrube, 2003- NMCA-108, ¶ 20, 134 N.M. 262 , 75 P.3d 862 (stating that when a prosecutorial misconduct “claim has not been properly preserved by a specific and timely objection at trial, we have the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error”); see also Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 (explaining that the “[f]ailure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error[,]” which can arise when a “prosecutor engages in misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (in	1	1
State v. Barbergreen nm · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015 2 sentences 2015A. Failure to litigate the 10-8 call was not fundamental error Under the doctrine of fundamental error, an appellate court has the discretion to review an error that was not preserved in the trial court to determine if a defendant’s conviction “shock[s] the conscience” because either (1) the defendant is “indisputably innocent,” or (2) “a mistake in the process makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the apparent guilt of the accused.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 8, 17 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Rule 12-216(B)( 2015A. Failure to litigate the 10-8 call was not fundamental error Under the doctrine of fundamental error, an appellate court has the discretion to review an error that was not preserved in the trial court to determine if a defendant’s conviction “shock[s] the conscience” because either (1) the defendant is “indisputably innocent,” or (2) “a mistake in the process makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the apparent guilt of the accused.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 8, 17 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also Rule 12-216(B)(	1	1
State v. Boyergreen nmctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 2 sentences 2012In our calendar notice, this Court noted that “a single, isolated 16 statement will not generally rise to the level of fundamental error.” [CN 5] (citing 17 Allen, 2000 -NMSC-002, ¶ 95). 18 Defendant, citing to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982 , 984 19 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985), 4 1 continues to maintain that the prosecutor’s statement requires reversal. 2012In our calendar notice, this Court noted that “a single, isolated 16 statement will not generally rise to the level of fundamental error.” [CN 5] (citing 17 Allen, 2000 -NMSC-002, ¶ 95). 18 Defendant, citing to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982 , 984 19 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985), 4 1 continues to maintain that the prosecutor’s statement requires reversal.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (6)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Samora green nm · 2016 2 sentences 2021“Under this standard, we must determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected . . . from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 230 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021“Under this standard, we must determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected . . . from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 27 , 387 P.3d 230 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	2	2021–2021
State v. Silva green nm · 2008 2 sentences 2025We also will reverse a conviction for fundamental error “when a fundamental unfairness within the system has undermined judicial integrity.” State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Applying the fundamental error standard to the claim of error made by Defendant, we look first at whether we would have found error in refusing to sever the charges for trial had a motion for severance been filed, and then, if we find error, we proceed to determine if that error undermined Defendant’s fundamental rights or deprived him 2025We also will reverse a conviction for fundamental error “when a fundamental unfairness within the system has undermined judicial integrity.” State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {15} Applying the fundamental error standard to the claim of error made by Defendant, we look first at whether we would have found error in refusing to sever the charges for trial had a motion for severance been filed, and then, if we find error, we proceed to determine if that error undermined Defendant’s fundamental rights or deprived him	1	2025–2025
State v. Sosa green nm · 2009 2 sentences 2022“As with any fundamental error inquiry, we will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the fundamental integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Sosa, 2009- NMSC-056, ¶ 35, 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . {5} Defendant asserts that the sister’s living arrangement had no relevance other than to suggest the possibility that the jury should convict Defendant in order to protect the sister. [MIO 2-3] Defendant also suggests, however, that the victim’s credibility was a central issue at tria 2022“As with any fundamental error inquiry, we will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the fundamental integrity of the judicial process.” State v. Sosa, 2009- NMSC-056, ¶ 35, 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . {5} Defendant asserts that the sister’s living arrangement had no relevance other than to suggest the possibility that the jury should convict Defendant in order to protect the sister. [MIO 2-3] Defendant also suggests, however, that the victim’s credibility was a central issue at tria	1	2022–2022
Campos v. Bravo green nm · 2007 2 sentences 2015When reviewing for fundamental error, “we first determine if error occurred; if so, we next determine whether that error 'was fundamental.” Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 8 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 . 2015When reviewing for fundamental error, “we first determine if error occurred; if so, we next determine whether that error 'was fundamental.” Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 8 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 .	1	2015–2015
State v. Franklin green nm · 1967 2 sentences 2012In our calendar notice, this Court noted that “a single, isolated 16 statement will not generally rise to the level of fundamental error.” [CN 5] (citing 17 Allen, 2000 -NMSC-002, ¶ 95). 18 Defendant, citing to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982 , 984 19 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985), 4 1 continues to maintain that the prosecutor’s statement requires reversal. 2012In our calendar notice, this Court noted that “a single, isolated 16 statement will not generally rise to the level of fundamental error.” [CN 5] (citing 17 Allen, 2000 -NMSC-002, ¶ 95). 18 Defendant, citing to State v. Franklin, 78 N.M. 127, 129 , 428 P.2d 982 , 984 19 (1967), and State v. Boyer, 103 N.M. 655, 658-60 , 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985), 4 1 continues to maintain that the prosecutor’s statement requires reversal.	1	2012–2012
State v. Peters green nmctapp · 1997 2 sentences 2003Id.; State v. Peters, 1997-NMCA-084, ¶39 , 123 N.M. 667 , 944 P.2d 896 (observing that “failure to object to argument bars review on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of fundamental error”). 2003Id.; State v. Peters, 1997-NMCA-084, ¶39 , 123 N.M. 667 , 944 P.2d 896 (observing that “failure to object to argument bars review on appeal unless the alleged error rises to the level of fundamental error”).	1	2003–2003

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-2-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 31-18-15 (3)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check