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.
11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2012 0 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. Folkgreen2 sentences1955The proper inquiry here is: “Has the defendant capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense?” Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense, at page 431; see also State v. Folk, cited supra, 56 N.M. at page 592 , 247 P.2d 165 . 1955The proper inquiry here is: “Has the defendant capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense?” Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense, at page 431; see also State v. Folk, cited supra, 56 N.M. at page 592 , 247 P.2d 165 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2012See State v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 37 , 149 N.M. 185 , 246 P.3d 1057 (holding that counsel acts reasonably in not seeking a voluntary intoxication instruction when it could undermine a defendant's credibility with the jury). 2012See State v. Garcia, 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 37 , 149 N.M. 185 , 246 P.3d 1057 (holding that counsel acts reasonably in not seeking a voluntary intoxication instruction when it could undermine a defendant's credibility with the jury). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Senagreen2 sentences2010As this Court stated in State v. Sena, 92 N.M. 676, 676 , 594 P.2d 336, 336 (Ct.App.1979), “[n]o person shall be called upon to stand trial or be sentenced who because of mental illness is incapable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings, or of comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, or of making a rational defense.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) “[T]he sentencing of an incompetent [defendant] violates due process of law.” Id. at 679 , 594 P.2d at 339 . {24} Based on this analysis, we conclude that the district court erred when it proceeded w 2010As this Court stated in State v. Sena, 92 N.M. 676, 676 , 594 P.2d 336, 336 (Ct.App.1979), “[n]o person shall be called upon to stand trial or be sentenced who because of mental illness is incapable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings, or of comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, or of making a rational defense.” (Internal quotation marks and citation omitted.) “[T]he sentencing of an incompetent [defendant] violates due process of law.” Id. at 679 , 594 P.2d at 339 . {24} Based on this analysis, we conclude that the district court erred when it proceeded w | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mabrygreen2 sentences1984How could defendant assist in making "a rational defense" ( State v. Mabry, 96 N.M. 317 at 322 , 630 P.2d 269 at 274 (1981)), when the only evidence of his awareness regarding the crime was that he was protecting a non-existent eight-year-old daughter from being sold by his parents into white slavery, and was paternally obligated to do so? 1984How could defendant assist in making "a rational defense" ( State v. Mabry, 96 N.M. 317 at 322 , 630 P.2d 269 at 274 (1981)), when the only evidence of his awareness regarding the crime was that he was protecting a non-existent eight-year-old daughter from being sold by his parents into white slavery, and was paternally obligated to do so? | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences1984In State v. Lopez, 91 N.M. 779, 780 , 581 P.2d 872, 873 (1978), this Court stated: In reviewing the present case the appellate court should only examine the evidence to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. 1984In State v. Lopez, 91 N.M. 779, 780 , 581 P.2d 872, 873 (1978), this Court stated: In reviewing the present case the appellate court should only examine the evidence to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion. | 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. Upton
green
2 sentences1984In the earlier decision of State v. Upton , the court stated: The proper inquiry [of defendant's competency to stand trial] is: "Has the defendant capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense? " Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense, at page 431. * * * 60 N.M. at 211 , 290 P.2d at 443 . [Emphasis added.] After the adoption of UJI Crim. 41.01, the requirement that the defendant "comprehend his own condition" was eliminated and in its place the requirement th 1984In the earlier decision of State v. Upton , the court stated: The proper inquiry [of defendant's competency to stand trial] is: "Has the defendant capacity to understand the nature and object of the proceedings against him, to comprehend his own condition in reference to such proceedings, and to make a rational defense? " Weihofen, Mental Disorder as a Criminal Defense, at page 431. * * * 60 N.M. at 211 , 290 P.2d at 443 . [Emphasis added.] After the adoption of UJI Crim. 41.01, the requirement that the defendant "comprehend his own condition" was eliminated and in its place the requirement th | 6 | 1966–1984 |
State v. Roybal
green
2 sentences1979The Competency Issues State v. Roybal, 76 N.M. 337 , 414 P.2d 850 (1966) states: [N]o person shall be called upon to stand trial or be sentenced who because of mental illness is incapable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings, or of comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, or of making a rational defense. 1979The Competency Issues State v. Roybal, 76 N.M. 337 , 414 P.2d 850 (1966) states: [N]o person shall be called upon to stand trial or be sentenced who because of mental illness is incapable of understanding the nature and object of the proceedings, or of comprehending his own condition in reference thereto, or of making a rational defense. | 2 | 1968–1979 |
Becenti v. Becenti
green
2 sentences2010However, even when the standard of review is an abuse 2 of discretion, “[this Court] review[s] the application of the law to the facts de novo.” 3 Becenti v. Becenti, 2004-NMCA-091, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 124 , 94 P.3d 867 (internal 4 quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 The capability of understanding proceedings and having the ability of making 6 a rational defense is fundamental within our judicial system. “[I]t is a violation of due 7 process to prosecute a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial.” State v. 8 Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , 122 N.M. 246, 252 , 923 P.2d 1131, 1137 . 2010However, even when the standard of review is an abuse 2 of discretion, “[this Court] review[s] the application of the law to the facts de novo.” 3 Becenti v. Becenti, 2004-NMCA-091, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 124 , 94 P.3d 867 (internal 4 quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 The capability of understanding proceedings and having the ability of making 6 a rational defense is fundamental within our judicial system. “[I]t is a violation of due 7 process to prosecute a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial.” State v. 8 Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , 122 N.M. 246, 252 , 923 P.2d 1131, 1137 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Rotherham
green
2 sentences2010However, even when the standard of review is an abuse 2 of discretion, “[this Court] review[s] the application of the law to the facts de novo.” 3 Becenti v. Becenti, 2004-NMCA-091, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 124 , 94 P.3d 867 (internal 4 quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 The capability of understanding proceedings and having the ability of making 6 a rational defense is fundamental within our judicial system. “[I]t is a violation of due 7 process to prosecute a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial.” State v. 8 Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , 122 N.M. 246, 252 , 923 P.2d 1131, 1137 . 2010However, even when the standard of review is an abuse 2 of discretion, “[this Court] review[s] the application of the law to the facts de novo.” 3 Becenti v. Becenti, 2004-NMCA-091, ¶ 6 , 136 N.M. 124 , 94 P.3d 867 (internal 4 quotation marks and citation omitted). 5 The capability of understanding proceedings and having the ability of making 6 a rational defense is fundamental within our judicial system. “[I]t is a violation of due 7 process to prosecute a defendant who is incompetent to stand trial.” State v. 8 Rotherham, 1996-NMSC-048 , 122 N.M. 246, 252 , 923 P.2d 1131, 1137 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Dusky v. United States
green
2 sentences1984The original committee comments to UJI Crim. 41.01 noted that "[t]he test set forth * * * in State v. Ortega * * * and State v. Folk * * * is more stringent than the federal test." By adopting UJI Crim. 41.01, the Supreme Court brought New Mexico under the standard set out in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). 1984The original committee comments to UJI Crim. 41.01 noted that "[t]he test set forth * * * in State v. Ortega * * * and State v. Folk * * * is more stringent than the federal test." By adopting UJI Crim. 41.01, the Supreme Court brought New Mexico under the standard set out in Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 , 80 S.Ct. 788 , 4 L.Ed.2d 824 (1960). | 1 | 1984–1984 |
Territory of New Mexico v. Kennedy
green
1 sentence1966There can be no question- that the procedure followed is in conformity with what was said in State v. Upton, supra: ' “Section 41-13-3, NMSA 1953, as construed in Territory v. Kennedy, cited supra, [ 15 N.M. 556 , 110 P. 854 ], and State v. Folk, cited supra [ 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 ], outlines the rights of defendants claiming insanity at the time of trial: 1.) No particular method of bringing the question of defendant’s present sanity to the attention of the trial court is required. 2.) Once the issue has been raised the trial court is under a duty to inquire into the matter. 3.-) The tr | 1 | 1966–1966 |
In re Smith
green
2 sentences1966State v. Upton, 60 N.M. 205 , 290 P.2d 440 ; State v. Folk, 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 ; In re Smith, 25 N.M. 48 , 176 P. 819 , 3 A.L. 1966State v. Upton, 60 N.M. 205 , 290 P.2d 440 ; State v. Folk, 56 N.M. 583 , 247 P.2d 165 ; In re Smith, 25 N.M. 48 , 176 P. 819 , 3 A.L. | 1 | 1966–1966 |
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.