10 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1954–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2025See State v. Lopez, 1986-NMCA-094 , ¶ 40, 105 N.M. 538 , 734 P.2d 778 (“Defendants cannot complain on appeal of claimed errors which were not objected to below.”). {9} Additionally, we agree with the State that Defendant, not the State, was the source of Officer Murillo’s testimony. 2025See State v. Lopez, 1986-NMCA-094 , ¶ 40, 105 N.M. 538 , 734 P.2d 778 (“Defendants cannot complain on appeal of claimed errors which were not objected to below.”). {9} Additionally, we agree with the State that Defendant, not the State, was the source of Officer Murillo’s testimony. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jernigangreen2 sentences2011See Jemigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 14 , 139 N.M. 1 , 127 P.3d 537 (despite failure to define the elements of “attempted voluntary manslaughter,” court deemed the failure to instruct preserved because the district court understood which instruction defendant sought). {27} In addition to the written instruction, counsel and the district court engaged in an extensive colloquy where both sides made arguments regarding the propriety of Defendant’s proposed instruction, again alerting the court to Defendant’s theory and the relevant law. 2011See Jemigan, 2006-NMSC-003, ¶ 14 , 139 N.M. 1 , 127 P.3d 537 (despite failure to define the elements of “attempted voluntary manslaughter,” court deemed the failure to instruct preserved because the district court understood which instruction defendant sought). {27} In addition to the written instruction, counsel and the district court engaged in an extensive colloquy where both sides made arguments regarding the propriety of Defendant’s proposed instruction, again alerting the court to Defendant’s theory and the relevant law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2008See generally State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446 , 774 P.2d 440 (1989), modified on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lobato, 2006-NMCA-051, ¶ 28 , 139 N.M. 431 , 134 P.3d 122 . 2008See generally State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446 , 774 P.2d 440 (1989), modified on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lobato, 2006-NMCA-051, ¶ 28 , 139 N.M. 431 , 134 P.3d 122 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2008Because Defendant did fail to appear in the jail as fixed by the court’s furlough order, itself a criminal act under Hill, 117 N.M. at 807-09, 877 P.2d at 1110-12; because the district court issued a bench warrant because of that failure to appear; and because the district court vacated the trial date as a result of the bench warrant, we believe it is most consistent with the wording of the rule as applied to the facts of this case to hold that Rule 5-604(B)(5) operated to begin the running of the six-month rule anew when Defendant was arrested on the warrant for his failure to appear at the j 2008Because Defendant did fail to appear in the jail as fixed by the court's furlough order, itself a criminal act under Hill, 117 N.M. at 807-09, 877 P.2d at 1110-12; because the district court issued a bench warrant because of that failure to appear; and because the district court vacated the trial date as a result of the bench warrant, we believe it is most consistent with the wording of the rule as applied *1154 to the facts of this case to hold that Rule 5-604(B)(5) operated to begin the running of the six-month rule anew when Defendant was arrested on the warrant for his failure to appear at | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mendozagreen2 sentences2008See generally State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446 , 774 P.2d 440 (1989), modified on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lobato, 2006-NMCA-051, ¶ 28 , 139 N.M. 431 , 134 P.3d 122 . 2008See generally State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446 , 774 P.2d 440 (1989), modified on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lobato, 2006-NMCA-051, ¶ 28 , 139 N.M. 431 , 134 P.3d 122 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hillgreen2 sentences2008Because Defendant did fail to appear in the jail as fixed by the court’s furlough order, itself a criminal act under Hill, 117 N.M. at 807-09, 877 P.2d at 1110-12; because the district court issued a bench warrant because of that failure to appear; and because the district court vacated the trial date as a result of the bench warrant, we believe it is most consistent with the wording of the rule as applied to the facts of this case to hold that Rule 5-604(B)(5) operated to begin the running of the six-month rule anew when Defendant was arrested on the warrant for his failure to appear at the j 2008Because Defendant did fail to appear in the jail as fixed by the court's furlough order, itself a criminal act under Hill, 117 N.M. at 807-09, 877 P.2d at 1110-12; because the district court issued a bench warrant because of that failure to appear; and because the district court vacated the trial date as a result of the bench warrant, we believe it is most consistent with the wording of the rule as applied *1154 to the facts of this case to hold that Rule 5-604(B)(5) operated to begin the running of the six-month rule anew when Defendant was arrested on the warrant for his failure to appear at | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lobatogreen2 sentences2008See generally State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446 , 774 P.2d 440 (1989), modified on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lobato, 2006-NMCA-051, ¶ 28 , 139 N.M. 431 , 134 P.3d 122 . 2008See generally State v. Mendoza, 108 N.M. 446 , 774 P.2d 440 (1989), modified on other grounds as recognized by State v. Lobato, 2006-NMCA-051, ¶ 28 , 139 N.M. 431 , 134 P.3d 122 . | 1 | 1 |
Ramos v. Rodriguezgreen2 sentences1998That decision was determinative. 98 N.M. at 251 , 647 P.2d at 884 ; see also Ramos, 118 N.M. at 536-37 , 882 P.2d at 1049-50 . 18. 1998That decision was determinative. 98 N.M. at 251 , 647 P.2d at 884 ; see also Ramos, 118 N.M. at 536-37 , 882 P.2d at 1049-50 . 18. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In re Aaron L.
green
2 sentences2014See § 30-28-2. 2 Likewise, the jury instructions did not require the jury to find that Defendant 3 committed the actual shoplifting in order to find Defendant guilty of conspiracy to 4 shoplift. [See RP 77] Although the jury instruction defining the shoplifting elements 5 was vague with regard to the shoplifter identified therein and was arguably confusing 6 as a result thereof, see § 30-16-20(A)(4) (defining “shoplifting” as “willfully 7 transferring merchandise from the container in or on which it is displayed to another 8 container with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some 2014See § 30-28-2. 2 Likewise, the jury instructions did not require the jury to find that Defendant 3 committed the actual shoplifting in order to find Defendant guilty of conspiracy to 4 shoplift. [See RP 77] Although the jury instruction defining the shoplifting elements 5 was vague with regard to the shoplifter identified therein and was arguably confusing 6 as a result thereof, see § 30-16-20(A)(4) (defining “shoplifting” as “willfully 7 transferring merchandise from the container in or on which it is displayed to another 8 container with the intention of depriving the merchant of all or some | 1 | 2014–2014 |
State v. Littlefield
green
2 sentences2009Littlefield, 2008-NMCA-109, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 655 , 190 P.3d 1150 (emphasis added). {13} We are cognizant of the fact that the Supreme Court of New Mexico changed Rule 5-604(F) by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-052, effective November 24, 2008, to read that “[i]n the event the trial ... does not commence within the time specified in Paragraph B of this rule ... the information or indictment filed against such person may be dismissed with prejudice or the court may consider other sanctions as appropriate." (Emphasis added.) This does not support the State’s ease. 2009Littlefield, 2008-NMCA-109, ¶ 12 , 144 N.M. 655 , 190 P.3d 1150 (emphasis added). {13} We are cognizant of the fact that the Supreme Court of New Mexico changed Rule 5-604(F) by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-052, effective November 24, 2008, to read that “[i]n the event the trial ... does not commence within the time specified in Paragraph B of this rule ... the information or indictment filed against such person may be dismissed with prejudice or the court may consider other sanctions as appropriate." (Emphasis added.) This does not support the State’s ease. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Harrison v. ICX, Illinois-California Express, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998That decision was determinative. 98 N.M. at 251 , 647 P.2d at 884 ; see also Ramos, 118 N.M. at 536-37 , 882 P.2d at 1049-50 . 18. 1998That decision was determinative. 98 N.M. at 251 , 647 P.2d at 884 ; see also Ramos, 118 N.M. at 536-37 , 882 P.2d at 1049-50 . 18. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Boone v. SUPER. CT. IN AND FOR MARICOPA CTY.
green
2 sentences1991“The objectives sought by Rule 11 and the wording of the rule primarily ‘place a moral obligation’ upon the lawyer ‘to satisfy himself that there are good grounds for the action or defense.’ ” Boone, 145 Ariz. at 239 , 700 P.2d at 1339 (quoting C. 1991“The objectives sought by Rule 11 and the wording of the rule primarily ‘place a moral obligation’ upon the lawyer ‘to satisfy himself that there are good grounds for the action or defense.’ ” Boone, 145 Ariz. at 239 , 700 P.2d at 1339 (quoting C. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Clifford Frank Campbell and John Clifton Free
green
2 sentences1974“Plain error” has been characterized in various ways such as “grave errors which seriously affect substantial rights of the accused,” “errors that result in a clear miscarriage of justice,” errors that “are obvious or * * * otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Campbell, 419 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1969). 1974"Plain error" has been characterized in various ways such as "grave errors which seriously affect substantial rights of the accused," "errors that result in a clear miscarriage of justice," errors that "are obvious or * * * otherwise seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings." United States v. Campbell, 419 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir.1969). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Jones v. Pringle
neutral
2 sentences1971For the applicable wording of the rule see Jones v. Pringle, 78 N.M. 467 , 432 P.2d 823 (1967). 1971For the applicable wording of the rule see Jones v. Pringle, 78 N.M. 467 , 432 P.2d 823 (1967). | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State v. Seward
neutral
2 sentences1954The rationale of the state’s position with regard to these instructions is deemed untenable under the decision in State v. Seward, 1942, 46 N.M. 84 , 121 P.2d 145, 146 , where it is stated: “The court instructed the jury that it could find the appellant guilty because he was intoxicated or because he failed to possess the driver’s license. 1954The rationale of the state’s position with regard to these instructions is deemed untenable under the decision in State v. Seward, 1942, 46 N.M. 84 , 121 P.2d 145, 146 , where it is stated: “The court instructed the jury that it could find the appellant guilty because he was intoxicated or because he failed to possess the driver’s license. | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.