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.
10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Reily v. Lámargreen1 sentence2022See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 6 U.S. 344 , 370 n.13, 378 (2011); cf. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 (“The hearsay 7 rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive and must remain distinct.”); 8 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008) (distinguishing between Confrontation 9 Clause analysis and state law considerations). 10 A. Standard of Review 11 {23} “[W]hether out-of-court statements are admissible under the Confrontation 12 Clause is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Largo, 2012-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13 9; State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806 , 14 P.3d 1282 . 14 | 1 | 1 |
Giles v. Californiagreen1 sentence2022See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 6 U.S. 344 , 370 n.13, 378 (2011); cf. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 (“The hearsay 7 rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive and must remain distinct.”); 8 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008) (distinguishing between Confrontation 9 Clause analysis and state law considerations). 10 A. Standard of Review 11 {23} “[W]hether out-of-court statements are admissible under the Confrontation 12 Clause is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Largo, 2012-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13 9; State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806 , 14 P.3d 1282 . 14 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendezgreen1 sentence2022See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 6 U.S. 344 , 370 n.13, 378 (2011); cf. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 (“The hearsay 7 rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive and must remain distinct.”); 8 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008) (distinguishing between Confrontation 9 Clause analysis and state law considerations). 10 A. Standard of Review 11 {23} “[W]hether out-of-court statements are admissible under the Confrontation 12 Clause is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Largo, 2012-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13 9; State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806 , 14 P.3d 1282 . 14 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Navarettegreen1 sentence2014See State v. Navarette, 10 1 2013-NMSC-003, ¶ 7 , 294 P.3d 435 (deciding that the defendant’s Confrontation 2 Clause claim rested on whether the testimony of the forensic pathologist who did not 3 perform the autopsy related any testimonial statements by the pathologist who 4 performed the autopsy). 5 {16} In Cabezuela, our Supreme Court addressed a similar situation, also involving 6 Dr. Barry, as the testifying expert in her capacity as the supervising forensic 7 pathologist, while a different forensic pathologist fellow, Dr. Bracey, actually 8 performed the autopsy. 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 50 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cabezuelagreen1 sentence2014See State v. Navarette, 10 1 2013-NMSC-003, ¶ 7 , 294 P.3d 435 (deciding that the defendant’s Confrontation 2 Clause claim rested on whether the testimony of the forensic pathologist who did not 3 perform the autopsy related any testimonial statements by the pathologist who 4 performed the autopsy). 5 {16} In Cabezuela, our Supreme Court addressed a similar situation, also involving 6 Dr. Barry, as the testifying expert in her capacity as the supervising forensic 7 pathologist, while a different forensic pathologist fellow, Dr. Bracey, actually 8 performed the autopsy. 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 50 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2010“The Clause also does not bar the use of testimonial statements for purposes other than establishing the truth of the matter asserted.” Id. (citation omitted). 2008The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” Crawford, 541 U.S. at 59 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . | 2 | 2008–2010 |
Valhal Corp. v. Sullivan Associates, Inc., Architects, Planners, Engineers
green
2 sentences2006Id. 2006Id. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Largo
green
1 sentence2022See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 6 U.S. 344 , 370 n.13, 378 (2011); cf. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 (“The hearsay 7 rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive and must remain distinct.”); 8 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008) (distinguishing between Confrontation 9 Clause analysis and state law considerations). 10 A. Standard of Review 11 {23} “[W]hether out-of-court statements are admissible under the Confrontation 12 Clause is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Largo, 2012-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13 9; State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806 , 14 P.3d 1282 . 14 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Lasner
green
2 sentences2022See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 6 U.S. 344 , 370 n.13, 378 (2011); cf. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 (“The hearsay 7 rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive and must remain distinct.”); 8 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008) (distinguishing between Confrontation 9 Clause analysis and state law considerations). 10 A. Standard of Review 11 {23} “[W]hether out-of-court statements are admissible under the Confrontation 12 Clause is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Largo, 2012-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13 9; State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806 , 14 P.3d 1282 . 14 2022See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 6 U.S. 344 , 370 n.13, 378 (2011); cf. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 (“The hearsay 7 rule and the Confrontation Clause are not co-extensive and must remain distinct.”); 8 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 376 (2008) (distinguishing between Confrontation 9 Clause analysis and state law considerations). 10 A. Standard of Review 11 {23} “[W]hether out-of-court statements are admissible under the Confrontation 12 Clause is a question of law, subject to de novo review.” Largo, 2012-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13 9; State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038 , ¶ 24, 129 N.M. 806 , 14 P.3d 1282 . 14 | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rojo
green
1 sentence2021We cannot say [a] trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.’ ” State v. Salazar, 2007-NMSC-004, ¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 148 , 152 P.3d 135 (quoting Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Salazar
green
2 sentences2021We cannot say [a] trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.’ ” State v. Salazar, 2007-NMSC-004, ¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 148 , 152 P.3d 135 (quoting Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 ). 2021We cannot say [a] trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.’ ” State v. Salazar, 2007-NMSC-004, ¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 148 , 152 P.3d 135 (quoting Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 41 ). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Tollardo
green
2 sentences2020The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . 2020The Clause does not bar admission of a statement so long as the declarant is present at trial to defend or explain it.” (omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)), overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Lopez
green
1 sentence2016“Only if the 16 preliminary hearing testimony was properly admitted do we address the Confrontation 17 Clause issue.” Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts
green
1 sentence2010If evidence is not “testimonial,” it does not present a Confrontation 14 Clause issue because “only testimonial statements cause the declarant to be a witness 15 within the meaning of the Confrontation Clause.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 16 citation omitted). 17 In Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, the United States Supreme Court held 18 that the admission of certificates prepared and sworn to by analysts at a state crime 9 1 laboratory, identifying a substance as cocaine, were “testimonial” and triggered the 2 procedural safeguards of the Confrontation Clause. 557 U.S. __ , 129 S. Ct. 25 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Dedman
green
2 sentences2010Once it has been established that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of the statement, the rules of evidence govern whether the statement is admissible. {7} Eight months after the United States Supreme Court filed its opinion in Crawford, we issued our opinion in Dedman, and held that blood-alcohol reports prepared by the New Mexico Department of Public Health’s Scientific Laboratory Division are admissible hearsay under the “public record” exception of Rule 11-803(H). 2004-NMSC-037, ¶ 24 , 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628 . 2010Once it has been established that the Confrontation Clause does not bar admission of the statement, the rules of evidence govern whether the statement is admissible. {7} Eight months after the United States Supreme Court filed its opinion in Crawford, we issued our opinion in Dedman, and held that blood-alcohol reports prepared by the New Mexico Department of Public Health’s Scientific Laboratory Division are admissible hearsay under the “public record” exception of Rule 11-803(H). 2004-NMSC-037, ¶ 24 , 136 N.M. 561 , 102 P.3d 628 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.