11 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 2 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. McDanielgreen2 sentences2011We disagree. 9 “Remedies for violation of discovery rules or orders are discretionary with the 10 trial court[,]” and we are unpersuaded that the trial court’s cure in this case “was 11 against logic and not justified by reason.” McDaniel, 2004-NMCA-022, ¶ 6 (internal 12 quotation marks and citations omitted). 2011See McDaniel, 16 2004-NMCA-022, ¶ 8 . 17 Defendant next claims that he was denied the right to present his defense. 18 Defendant argues that the only evidence of intoxication was the results of the blood 19 test and, therefore, a review of the chromatogram by an expert witness was critical to 9 1 his defense. | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2007No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.” McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651, 653 , 763 P.2d 360, 362 (1988); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). {14} A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. 2007No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.” McCarty v. State, 107 N.M. 651, 653 , 763 P.2d 360, 362 (1988); see also Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). {14} A defendant seeking relief because an avenue for his defense was foreclosed by an evidentiary ruling must show that he was prejudiced by the ruling. | 2 | 2 |
McCarty v. Stategreen2 sentences2024No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.’” Id. ¶ 13 (quoting McCarty v. State, 1988- NMSC-079, ¶ 9, 107 N.M. 651 , 763 P.2d 360 ). 2024No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.’” Id. ¶ 13 (quoting McCarty v. State, 1988- NMSC-079, ¶ 9, 107 N.M. 651 , 763 P.2d 360 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan 2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan | 1 | 1 |
State v. Flanagangreen2 sentences2009See State v. Flanagan, 111 N.M. 93, 95-96 , 801 P.2d 675, 677-78 (Ct. 8 App. 1990 ) (holding that a mistrial was properly denied where the possibility of 9 prejudice was highly speculative). 10 To the extent Defendant claims that the court’s refusal to cure the false 11 testimony by ordering a new trial denied him the right to present a defense, we 12 disagree. [DS 14] Presumably, Defendant wanted to benefit from introducing 13 additional evidence that he was the one that requested another test. 2009See State v. Flanagan, 111 N.M. 93, 95-96 , 801 P.2d 675, 677-78 (Ct. 8 App. 1990 ) (holding that a mistrial was properly denied where the possibility of 9 prejudice was highly speculative). 10 To the extent Defendant claims that the court’s refusal to cure the false 11 testimony by ordering a new trial denied him the right to present a defense, we 12 disagree. [DS 14] Presumably, Defendant wanted to benefit from introducing 13 additional evidence that he was the one that requested another test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2007See State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5 , 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972) (stating that an error was not reversible because the defendant did not show prejudice). 2007See State v. Wright, 84 N.M. 3, 5 , 498 P.2d 695, 697 (Ct.App.1972) (stating that an error was not reversible because the defendant did not show prejudice). | 1 | 1 |
Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. County Assessorgreen1 sentence1989See In re Miller, 88 N.M. 492 , 542 P.2d 1182 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5 , 546 P.2d 70 (1975); see also N.M. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Protest of Millergreen1 sentence1989See In re Miller, 88 N.M. 492 , 542 P.2d 1182 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 89 N.M. 5 , 546 P.2d 70 (1975); see also N.M. | 1 | 1 |
Robert Harold FENDLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert GOLDSMITH, and the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Defendants-Appelleesgreen2 sentences1988See Washington v. Texas, [ 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)]. 728 F.2d at 1188 . 1988See Washington v. Texas, [ 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)]. 728 F.2d at 1188 . | 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. Campbell
green
2 sentences2024No other approach adequately protects the right to present a defense.’” Id. ¶ 13 (quoting McCarty v. State, 1988- NMSC-079, ¶ 9, 107 N.M. 651 , 763 P.2d 360 ). 2017State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 9 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 . 17 “An abuse of discretion arises when the evidentiary ruling is clearly contrary to logic 18 and the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 24 , 19 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).We fail 20 to see an abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling. 12 1 {23} Defendant contends that he had a right to present his defense to the jury. | 2 | 2017–2024 |
State v. Roman
green
2 sentences2022The State argues that the amendment was permissible under Rule 5-204(A), (C) NMRA, and therefore, Defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced because the bill of particulars provided adequate notice of the basis of Count 14. {12} Rule 5-204(A) provides that an indictment may be amended “in respect to any such defect, error, or omission or repugnancy if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.” See State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 688 , 964 P.2d 852 (providing that Rule 5- 204(A) “does not allow the [distric 2022The State argues that the amendment was permissible under Rule 5-204(A), (C) NMRA, and therefore, Defendant’s substantial rights were not prejudiced because the bill of particulars provided adequate notice of the basis of Count 14. {12} Rule 5-204(A) provides that an indictment may be amended “in respect to any such defect, error, or omission or repugnancy if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced.” See State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 688 , 964 P.2d 852 (providing that Rule 5- 204(A) “does not allow the [distric | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Downey
green
2 sentences2017State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 9 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 . 17 “An abuse of discretion arises when the evidentiary ruling is clearly contrary to logic 18 and the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 24 , 19 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).We fail 20 to see an abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling. 12 1 {23} Defendant contends that he had a right to present his defense to the jury. 2017State v. Campbell, 2007-NMCA-051, ¶ 9 , 141 N.M. 543 , 157 P.3d 722 . 17 “An abuse of discretion arises when the evidentiary ruling is clearly contrary to logic 18 and the facts and circumstances of the case.” State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 24 , 19 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 . (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).We fail 20 to see an abuse of discretion in the district court’s ruling. 12 1 {23} Defendant contends that he had a right to present his defense to the jury. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Sarracino
green
2 sentences2010We have considered 4 Defendant’s arguments, and as we are not persuaded by them, we affirm. 5 The Right to Present a Defense 6 Defendant asserts that he was denied the right to present a defense when the 7 district court refused to admit the testimony of David Goff, who would have testified 8 that the victim’s mother, Angela Brinley, told him that, years earlier, she had 9 wrongfully accused a man of raping her so that her parents would not know that she 10 had had a relationship with someone of another race. [DS 3] “We review the 11 admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard 2010We have considered 4 Defendant’s arguments, and as we are not persuaded by them, we affirm. 5 The Right to Present a Defense 6 Defendant asserts that he was denied the right to present a defense when the 7 district court refused to admit the testimony of David Goff, who would have testified 8 that the victim’s mother, Angela Brinley, told him that, years earlier, she had 9 wrongfully accused a man of raping her so that her parents would not know that she 10 had had a relationship with someone of another race. [DS 3] “We review the 11 admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Pacheco
green
2 sentences2010“A district court abuses its discretion when it misapplies or 14 misapprehends the law.” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-131, ¶ 34 , 145 N.M. 40 , 193 15 P.3d 587 . 16 We find no error in the district court’s exclusion of this evidence. 2010“A district court abuses its discretion when it misapplies or 14 misapprehends the law.” State v. Pacheco, 2008-NMCA-131, ¶ 34 , 145 N.M. 40 , 193 15 P.3d 587 . 16 We find no error in the district court’s exclusion of this evidence. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Curley
green
2 sentences2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan 2009“In order to obtain an instruction 16 on a lesser included offense, ‘[t]here must be some view of the evidence pursuant to 17 which the lesser offense is the highest degree of crime committed, and that view must 18 be reasonable.’” State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 12 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 19 (quoting State v. Curley, 1997-NMCA-038, ¶ 5 , 123 N.M. 295 , 939 P.2d 1103 ). 3 1 Defendant argued below that Defendant and Leslie shoplifted separately, thereby 2 making relevant any evidence regarding who took what items. [DS 5] In her docketing 3 statement and memorandum in opposition, Defendan | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Nieto
green
1 sentence2009Cf. State v. Nieto, 2000-NMSC-031 , ¶ 17, 129 N.M. 5 688, 12 P.3d 442 (holding that a defendant has no right to have a legally incorrect jury 6 instruction read to the jury or to mislead the jury through a misstatement of the law). 7 Consequently, the trial court’s limitation on Defendant’s presentation of evidence was 8 correct, and we find no error. 9 B. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.