cumulative error is to be strictly doctrine in New Mexico

2021“The doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly applied, and cannot be invoked if the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received a fair trial.” State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 28 , 307 P.3d 328 (alterations, omission, internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021See State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 28 , 307 P.3d 328 (“The doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly applied, and cannot be invoked if the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received a fair trial.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, ¶ 17 , 340 P.3d 622 (“This Court will not rule on an inadequately-briefed issue where doing so would require this Court to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties’ work for them.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 3Defendant also states that

2026In this context, the individual errors and 7 irregularities are but “ingredient[s] in a cumulative error analysis.” See Garvin, 8 2005-NMCA-107, ¶¶ 14, 29 ; see also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 47 , 126 9 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (noting that “under the doctrine of cumulative error, a series 10 of lesser prosecutorial improprieties may amount to reversible error”), overruled on 11 other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . 12 Nevertheless, we are mindful that “[t]he doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly 13 applied, and cannot be invoked if the rec

2026In this context, the individual errors and 7 irregularities are but “ingredient[s] in a cumulative error analysis.” See Garvin, 8 2005-NMCA-107, ¶¶ 14, 29 ; see also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 47 , 126 9 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (noting that “under the doctrine of cumulative error, a series 10 of lesser prosecutorial improprieties may amount to reversible error”), overruled on 11 other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . 12 Nevertheless, we are mindful that “[t]he doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly 13 applied, and cannot be invoked if the rec

2026See United States v. Caraway, 534 F.3d 1290, 1301-02 (10th Cir. 2008) (discussing the complexity of evaluating harmless, preserved, and unpreserved error together for cumulative error); United States v. Starks, 34 F.4th 1142, 1170 (10th Cir. 2022) (providing a step-by-step analysis for cumulative error to aggregate preserved and unpreserved errors); State v. Begay, 1998-NMSC-029 , ¶¶ 21-23, 125 N.M. 541 , 964 P.2d 102 (discussing how a structural defect—a “total deprivation of [a] right”—is distinct from a harmless error, plain error, or fundamental error); cf. United States v. Cristerna-Gonza

2026In this context, the individual errors and 7 irregularities are but “ingredient[s] in a cumulative error analysis.” See Garvin, 8 2005-NMCA-107, ¶¶ 14, 29 ; see also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 47 , 126 9 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (noting that “under the doctrine of cumulative error, a series 10 of lesser prosecutorial improprieties may amount to reversible error”), overruled on 11 other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . 12 Nevertheless, we are mindful that “[t]he doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly 13 applied, and cannot be invoked if the rec

2026In this context, the individual errors and 7 irregularities are but “ingredient[s] in a cumulative error analysis.” See Garvin, 8 2005-NMCA-107, ¶¶ 14, 29 ; see also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 47 , 126 9 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (noting that “under the doctrine of cumulative error, a series 10 of lesser prosecutorial improprieties may amount to reversible error”), overruled on 11 other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . 12 Nevertheless, we are mindful that “[t]he doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly 13 applied, and cannot be invoked if the rec

2026See United States v. Caraway, 534 F.3d 1290, 1301-02 (10th Cir. 2008) (discussing the complexity of evaluating harmless, preserved, and unpreserved error together for cumulative error); United States v. Starks, 34 F.4th 1142, 1170 (10th Cir. 2022) (providing a step-by-step analysis for cumulative error to aggregate preserved and unpreserved errors); State v. Begay, 1998-NMSC-029 , ¶¶ 21-23, 125 N.M. 541 , 964 P.2d 102 (discussing how a structural defect—a “total deprivation of [a] right”—is distinct from a harmless error, plain error, or fundamental error); cf. United States v. Cristerna-Gonza

2026In this context, the individual errors and 7 irregularities are but “ingredient[s] in a cumulative error analysis.” See Garvin, 8 2005-NMCA-107, ¶¶ 14, 29 ; see also State v. Duffy, 1998-NMSC-014, ¶ 47 , 126 9 N.M. 132 , 967 P.2d 807 (noting that “under the doctrine of cumulative error, a series 10 of lesser prosecutorial improprieties may amount to reversible error”), overruled on 11 other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 37 n.6, 275 P.3d 110 . 12 Nevertheless, we are mindful that “[t]he doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly 13 applied, and cannot be invoked if the rec

2026See United States v. Caraway, 534 F.3d 1290, 1301-02 (10th Cir. 2008) (discussing the complexity of evaluating harmless, preserved, and unpreserved error together for cumulative error); United States v. Starks, 34 F.4th 1142, 1170 (10th Cir. 2022) (providing a step-by-step analysis for cumulative error to aggregate preserved and unpreserved errors); State v. Begay, 1998-NMSC-029 , ¶¶ 21-23, 125 N.M. 541 , 964 P.2d 102 (discussing how a structural defect—a “total deprivation of [a] right”—is distinct from a harmless error, plain error, or fundamental error); cf. United States v. Cristerna-Gonza

2021See State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 008 (explaining the applicability of harmless error review). {15} “[T]o constitute an excited utterance, the declaration[s] should be spontaneous, made before there is time for fabrication and made under the stress of the moment.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 47 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Martinez, 2021- NMSC-002, ¶ 87, 478 P.3d 880 .

2021See State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 008 (explaining the applicability of harmless error review). {15} “[T]o constitute an excited utterance, the declaration[s] should be spontaneous, made before there is time for fabrication and made under the stress of the moment.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 47 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Martinez, 2021- NMSC-002, ¶ 87, 478 P.3d 880 .

2021See State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 008 (explaining the applicability of harmless error review). {15} “[T]o constitute an excited utterance, the declaration[s] should be spontaneous, made before there is time for fabrication and made under the stress of the moment.” State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 47 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds by State v. Martinez, 2021- NMSC-002, ¶ 87, 478 P.3d 880 .

2021See Fuentes, 2010-NMCA-027, ¶ 29 ; see also State v. Samora, 2013- NMSC-038, ¶ 28, 307 P.3d 328 (“The doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly applied, and cannot be invoked if the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received a fair trial.” (alterations, omission, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2020See generally State v. Martin, 1984-NMSC-077 , ¶ 17, 101 N.M. 595 , 686 P.2d 937 (“Cumulative error requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction when the cumulative impact of errors which occurred at trial was so prejudicial that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”); see also State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 28 , 307 P.3d 328 (“The doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly applied, and cannot be invoked if the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received a fair trial.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).

2020See generally State v. Martin, 1984-NMSC-077 , ¶ 17, 101 N.M. 595 , 686 P.2d 937 (“Cumulative error requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction when the cumulative impact of errors which occurred at trial was so prejudicial that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.”); see also State v. Samora, 2013-NMSC-038, ¶ 28 , 307 P.3d 328 (“The doctrine of cumulative error is to be strictly applied, and cannot be invoked if the record as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received a fair trial.” (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)).