10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1934–2019 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. Paizgreen1 sentence2019See Paiz, 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 33 (“On appeal we only consider issues raised in the [district] court unless the issues involve matters of jurisdictional or fundamental error.”). {18} Although Defendant has argued the merits of the Brady issue and has not asked us to address it as a matter of fundamental error, our Supreme Court has indicated (albeit in an unpublished decision) that an improperly preserved Brady issue should be analyzed for fundamental error. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Phillipsgreen1 sentence2017See Phillips, 2000-NMCA-028, ¶ 32 (stating 11 1 that where remarks of the prosecutor are unchallenged they are reversible only where 2 they rise to the level of fundamental error). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Singletongreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., State v. Singleton, 2001- 8 NMCA-054, ¶ 19, 130 N.M. 583 , 28 P.3d 1124 (rejecting a defendant’s claim of 9 fundamental error because the “[d]efendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in 10 any way by the juror’s excusal”). 2014See, e.g., State v. Singleton, 2001- 8 NMCA-054, ¶ 19, 130 N.M. 583 , 28 P.3d 1124 (rejecting a defendant’s claim of 9 fundamental error because the “[d]efendant has not shown that he was prejudiced in 10 any way by the juror’s excusal”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences2003See State v. Thomas, 113 N.M. 298, 300 , 825 P.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1991) (considering an issue regarding credit for probation and whether the defendant was a fugitive as a matter of fundamental error). {20} Defendant’s argument that the sentence was illegal is not persuasive. 2003See State v. Thomas, 113 N.M. 298, 300 , 825 P.2d 231, 233 (Ct.App.1991) (considering an issue regarding credit for probation and whether the defendant was a fugitive as a matter of fundamental error). {20} Defendant’s argument that the sentence was illegal is not persuasive. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Osbornegreen2 sentences2001He has raised the issue as a matter of fundamental error, citing State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662 , 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991), (“The doctrine of fundamental error, even though it applies only under exceptional circumstances, does apply to prevent a miscarriage of justice[,] ... if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {22} Our Supreme Court recently examined the fundamental error doctrine exception to our general appellate rules in State v. Traeger, 2001-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 17-25 2001He has raised the issue as a matter of fundamental error, citing State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662 , 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991), (“The doctrine of fundamental error, even though it applies only under exceptional circumstances, does apply to prevent a miscarriage of justice[,] ... if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {22} Our Supreme Court recently examined the fundamental error doctrine exception to our general appellate rules in State v. Traeger, 2001-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 17-25 | 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. Castillo
green
2 sentences2017Defendant raises this issue as a matter of fundamental error 2 because, although defense counsel mentioned this at sentencing, he failed to object. 3 {26} In the context of an unpreserved sentencing error, the appellate courts apply the 4 fundamental error doctrine “only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent 5 a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Castillo, 2011-NMCA-046, ¶¶ 28-29 , 149 N.M. 536 , 6 252 P.3d 760 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2017Defendant raises this issue as a matter of fundamental error 2 because, although defense counsel mentioned this at sentencing, he failed to object. 3 {26} In the context of an unpreserved sentencing error, the appellate courts apply the 4 fundamental error doctrine “only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent 5 a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Castillo, 2011-NMCA-046, ¶¶ 28-29 , 149 N.M. 536 , 6 252 P.3d 760 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Barber
green
2 sentences2013Defendant raises it for the first time on appeal 10 as a matter of fundamental error. 11 “Because [the d]efendant failed to preserve any error with respect to the 12 definition of possession, we review only for fundamental error.” State v. Barber, 13 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 ; see also Rule 12-216(B)(2) 14 NMRA (“This rule shall not preclude the appellate court from considering 15 jurisdictional questions or, in its discretion, questions involving . . . fundamental 16 error[.]”). 2013Defendant raises it for the first time on appeal 10 as a matter of fundamental error. 11 “Because [the d]efendant failed to preserve any error with respect to the 12 definition of possession, we review only for fundamental error.” State v. Barber, 13 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 ; see also Rule 12-216(B)(2) 14 NMRA (“This rule shall not preclude the appellate court from considering 15 jurisdictional questions or, in its discretion, questions involving . . . fundamental 16 error[.]”). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Mascarenas
green
2 sentences2010“Fundamental error exists when guilt is so doubtful that it would 6 shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction to stand.” State v. Mascarenas, 7 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 7, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted). 2010“Fundamental error exists when guilt is so doubtful that it would 6 shock the judicial conscience to allow the conviction to stand.” State v. Mascarenas, 7 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 7, 129 N.M. 230 , 4 P.3d 1221 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Traeger
green
2 sentences2001He has raised the issue as a matter of fundamental error, citing State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662 , 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991), (“The doctrine of fundamental error, even though it applies only under exceptional circumstances, does apply to prevent a miscarriage of justice[,] ... if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {22} Our Supreme Court recently examined the fundamental error doctrine exception to our general appellate rules in State v. Traeger, 2001-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 17-25 2001He has raised the issue as a matter of fundamental error, citing State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662 , 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991), (“The doctrine of fundamental error, even though it applies only under exceptional circumstances, does apply to prevent a miscarriage of justice[,] ... if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.”) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {22} Our Supreme Court recently examined the fundamental error doctrine exception to our general appellate rules in State v. Traeger, 2001-NMSC-022, ¶¶ 17-25 | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Gracia v. Bittner
green
2 sentences1998First, the fundamental error doctrine generally does not apply in civil eases, see Gracia, 120 N.M. at 196 , 900 P.2d at 356 , and does not apply “where the asserted error inheres solely in difficulties with jury instructions.” Id. 1998First, the fundamental error doctrine generally does not apply in civil eases, see Gracia, 120 N.M. at 196 , 900 P.2d at 356 , and does not apply “where the asserted error inheres solely in difficulties with jury instructions.” Id. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Schaefer v. Whitson
green
1 sentence1934And it may be inquired, as to the particular defect here claimed, whether within the rule applied in Schaefer v. Whitson, 32 N. M. 481, 259 P. 618 , the same might be noticed as a matter of fundamental error. | 1 | 1934–1934 |
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.