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 1990–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2000We do not believe that we have interpreted the residual exception in a way which can be considered a broadening of that exception with commensurate concern that the exception might eventually “swallow the entirety of the hearsay rule.” Id., 61 F.3d at 1452 . 1999See Ross, 122 N.M. at 23 , 919 P.2d at 1088 . {16} “[Statements offered under the residual exception are considered ‘presumptively unreliable and inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause’ unless they possess sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to permit their admission into evidence.” 5 Weinstein & Berger, supra, § 807.03[2][c] at 807-18.1-18-2 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 818 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Freedgreen1 sentence2024See In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). {4} In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he states that the judge did not rule on the hearsay objection, and the letter could have come in under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Ernesto M., Jr.green1 sentence2024See In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 (“An assertion of prejudice is not a showing of prejudice.”). {4} In Defendant’s memorandum in opposition, he states that the judge did not rule on the hearsay objection, and the letter could have come in under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. | 1 | 1 |
Woolwine v. Furr's, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Woolwine v. Furr’s, Inc., 1987-NMCA-133 , ¶ 20, 106 N.M. 492 , 745 P.2d 717 (“To preserve an issue for review on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial court on the same grounds argued in the appellate court.”). 2019See Woolwine v. Furr’s, Inc., 1987-NMCA-133 , ¶ 20, 106 N.M. 492 , 745 P.2d 717 (“To preserve an issue for review on appeal, it must appear that appellant fairly invoked a ruling of the trial court on the same grounds argued in the appellate court.”). | 1 | 1 |
Corona v. Coronagreen1 sentence2019See Corona v. Corona, 12 1 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (stating that we will not “review an 2 argument that is not adequately developed”); Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , ¶ 3 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 4 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Pamela R.D.G.green1 sentence2016Rule 11-807(A)(3) 8 NMRA; see In re Pamela A.G., 2006-NMSC-019, ¶¶ 1-7 ; State v. Doe, 1980-NMCA- 9 091, ¶ 7. 10 {7} Defendant cites State v. Whitfield, No. 29,774 mem. op. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rossgreen2 sentences1999See Ross, 122 N.M. at 23 , 919 P.2d at 1088 . {16} “[Statements offered under the residual exception are considered ‘presumptively unreliable and inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause’ unless they possess sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to permit their admission into evidence.” 5 Weinstein & Berger, supra, § 807.03[2][c] at 807-18.1-18-2 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 818 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ). 1999See Ross, 122 N.M. at 23 , 919 P.2d at 1088 . {16} “[Statements offered under the residual exception are considered ‘presumptively unreliable and inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause’ unless they possess sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness to permit their admission into evidence.” 5 Weinstein & Berger, supra, § 807.03[2][c] at 807-18.1-18-2 (quoting Wright, 497 U.S. at 818 , 110 S.Ct. 3139 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Santa Fe v. Komis
green
2 sentences2019See Rule 11-703 NMRA; City of Santa Fe v. Komis, 1992-NMSC-051 , 16 ¶ 25 n.4, 114 N.M. 659 , 845 P.2d 753 (“While experts may rely on hearsay under 17 Rule [11-]703, the hearsay itself is not admissible.”). 18 {22} To the extent Cutliff relies on Rule 11-807, the residual exception to the 19 hearsay rule, he does not explain why the medical records should have been 20 admitted under this rule, and we decline to consider it. 2019See Rule 11-703 NMRA; City of Santa Fe v. Komis, 1992-NMSC-051 , 16 ¶ 25 n.4, 114 N.M. 659 , 845 P.2d 753 (“While experts may rely on hearsay under 17 Rule [11-]703, the hearsay itself is not admissible.”). 18 {22} To the extent Cutliff relies on Rule 11-807, the residual exception to the 19 hearsay rule, he does not explain why the medical records should have been 20 admitted under this rule, and we decline to consider it. | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Taylor
green
2 sentences2013The statements described or explained both the event and the victim’s condition, as Navarro had directly perceived them. {21} In response, Defendant cites State v. Taylor, 1985-NMCA-063 , ¶¶ 35-49, 103 N.M. 189 , 704 P.2d 443 , in which the court assessed the reliability and trustworthiness of hearsay statements admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. 2013The statements described or explained both the event and the victim’s condition, as Navarro had directly perceived them. {21} In response, Defendant cites State v. Taylor, 1985-NMCA-063 , ¶¶ 35-49, 103 N.M. 189 , 704 P.2d 443 , in which the court assessed the reliability and trustworthiness of hearsay statements admitted under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Muse v. Muse
green
2 sentences2019See Corona v. Corona, 12 1 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (stating that we will not “review an 2 argument that is not adequately developed”); Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , ¶ 3 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 4 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). 2019See Corona v. Corona, 12 1 2014-NMCA-071, ¶ 28 , 329 P.3d 701 (stating that we will not “review an 2 argument that is not adequately developed”); Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003 , ¶ 3 72, 145 N.M. 451 , 200 P.3d 104 (“We will not search the record for facts, 4 arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized arguments.”). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
United States v. Matthew Wayne Tome
green
1 sentence2000We do not believe that we have interpreted the residual exception in a way which can be considered a broadening of that exception with commensurate concern that the exception might eventually “swallow the entirety of the hearsay rule.” Id., 61 F.3d at 1452 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Barela
green
2 sentences1992State v. Barela, 97 N.M. 723 , 643 P.2d 287 (Ct.App. 1982). 1992State v. Barela, 97 N.M. 723 , 643 P.2d 287 (Ct.App. 1982). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Lee v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1992Since statements under the residual hearsay clause "do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception," such statements are "`presumptively unreliable and inadmissible for Confrontation Clause purposes.'" Wright, 497 U.S. at ___ , 110 S.Ct. at 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 -54 (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543 , 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). 1992Since statements under the residual hearsay clause "do not share the same tradition of reliability that supports the admissibility of statements under a firmly rooted hearsay exception," such statements are "`presumptively unreliable and inadmissible for Confrontation Clause purposes.'" Wright, 497 U.S. at ___ , 110 S.Ct. at 3148 , 111 L.Ed.2d at 653 -54 (quoting Lee v. Illinois, 476 U.S. 530, 543 , 106 S.Ct. 2056, 2063 , 90 L.Ed.2d 514 (1986)). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Foundation Reserve Insurance v. Martin
green
2 sentences1990Co. v. Martin, 79 N.M. 737 , 449 P.2d 339 (Ct.App.1968). 1990Co. v. Martin, 79 N.M. 737 , 449 P.2d 339 (Ct.App.1968). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.