70 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2026 44 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. Sosagreen2 sentences2026See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . {21} “To find fundamental error, we must be convinced that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.’” State v. Medema, 2025-NMCA-011 , ¶ 32, ___ P.3d ___ (quoting State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 21 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 ). 2026See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . {21} “To find fundamental error, we must be convinced that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.’” State v. Medema, 2025-NMCA-011 , ¶ 32, ___ P.3d ___ (quoting State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 21 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 ). | 12 | 22 |
State v. Tollardogreen2 sentences2026See State v. Fernandez, 2023-NMSC-005 , 528 P.3d 621, ¶ 24 (stating factors to assess the probable effect of evidentiary error); State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 25, 36 , 275 P.3d 110 (establishing that nonconstitutional error is reversible only where there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict). 1 {13} When speaking to the police on the day Victim’s body was found, Defendant 2 also stated that at Victim’s workplace there was a big man with a dark complexion 3 who made her uncomfortable. 2026See State v. Fernandez, 2023-NMSC-005 , 528 P.3d 621, ¶ 24 (stating factors to assess the probable effect of evidentiary error); State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 25, 36 , 275 P.3d 110 (establishing that nonconstitutional error is reversible only where there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict). 1 {13} When speaking to the police on the day Victim’s body was found, Defendant 2 also stated that at Victim’s workplace there was a big man with a dark complexion 3 who made her uncomfortable. | 9 | 13 |
State v. DeGraffgreen2 sentences2026See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . {21} “To find fundamental error, we must be convinced that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.’” State v. Medema, 2025-NMCA-011 , ¶ 32, ___ P.3d ___ (quoting State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 21 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 ). 2026See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 . {21} “To find fundamental error, we must be convinced that there is ‘a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.’” State v. Medema, 2025-NMCA-011 , ¶ 32, ___ P.3d ___ (quoting State v. DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 21 , 139 N.M. 211 , 131 P.3d 61 ). | 3 | 10 |
State v. Sernagreen2 sentences2023See Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 23 (explaining that “evidence of the defendant’s guilt apart from the error” should be considered when assessing “whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict”); see, e.g., State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶¶ 12-13 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 (citing the particular exculpatory testimony that a missing witness—described by the defendant as “the whole show for the [d]efense”—would have given). {6} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, and we therefore deny 2014We remain mindful that “[t]hese considerations, however, are not exclusive].]” Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 23 . “[T]hey are merely a guide to facilitate the ultimate determination — whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict.” Id. | 2 | 6 |
State v. Allengreen2 sentences2025Fundamental error occurs when prosecutorial misconduct is “‘so egregious and had such a pervasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.’” Id. ¶ 50 (quoting State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 ). “[W]e must be convinced that the prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 (internal quotation marks and citation omitte 2025Fundamental error occurs when prosecutorial misconduct is “‘so egregious and had such a pervasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.’” Id. ¶ 50 (quoting State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 ). “[W]e must be convinced that the prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 348 (internal quotation marks and citation omitte | 2 | 4 |
State v. Lucerogreen2 sentences2024See Marquez, 2021-NMCA-046, ¶ 32 (“[W]here, as here, the improperly admitted evidence goes to the primary issue of credibility in a sexual abuse case, it is more likely to be prejudicial.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 16, 450 P.3d 418 (“Given the importance of credibility in the trial, we have grave doubts concerning the fairness of the trial and conclude that the [improper] admission of [the] testimony amounted to plain error that was not harmless.”); see also State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 22, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 10 2024See Marquez, 2021-NMCA-046, ¶ 32 (“[W]here, as here, the improperly admitted evidence goes to the primary issue of credibility in a sexual abuse case, it is more likely to be prejudicial.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 16, 450 P.3d 418 (“Given the importance of credibility in the trial, we have grave doubts concerning the fairness of the trial and conclude that the [improper] admission of [the] testimony amounted to plain error that was not harmless.”); see also State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 22, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 10 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Marquezgreen2 sentences2024See Marquez, 2021-NMCA-046, ¶ 19 (stating that admitting other act evidence simply to corroborate a victim’s testimony is nothing more than proving that the defendant committed the charged act because he had a propensity to do so and is thus forbidden by Rule 11- 404(B)(1)). {14} Given that the outcome of this case was determined by the jury’s decision to believe the veracity and accuracy of Victim’s testimony over Defendant’s, we conclude that there is a reasonable probability the error affected the jury’s verdict in this case. 2023See State v. Marquez, 2021- NMCA-046, ¶ 34, 495 P.3d 1150 (“Given the centrality of credibility in this case and the nature and emphasis placed on the erroneously admitted evidence, we conclude there is a reasonable probability the error affected the jury’s verdict in this case.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Astorgagreen2 sentences2026This requires the Court to evaluate “whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 43 , 343 P.3d 1245 . 2025As Defendant acknowledges, “[t]he State did not need this additional evidence of intoxication when it already had [the arresting officer’s] testimony about his observations of [Defendant] and his performance on the field sobriety testing.” [MIO 8] See State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 43 , 343 P.3d 1245 (holding that, absent a constitutional violation, an appellate court’s harmless error analysis looks to “whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict”). {8} Lastly, Defendant continues to maintain that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of DWI becau | 1 | 6 |
State v. Torrezgreen2 sentences2026He compares the circumstances of his trial to those in State v. Torrez, 2009- NMSC-029, 146 N.M. 331 , 210 P.3d 228 . 2026He compares the circumstances of his trial to those in State v. Torrez, 2009- NMSC-029, 146 N.M. 331 , 210 P.3d 228 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Garciagreen2 sentences2024See Marquez, 2021-NMCA-046, ¶ 32 (“[W]here, as here, the improperly admitted evidence goes to the primary issue of credibility in a sexual abuse case, it is more likely to be prejudicial.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)); State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 16, 450 P.3d 418 (“Given the importance of credibility in the trial, we have grave doubts concerning the fairness of the trial and conclude that the [improper] admission of [the] testimony amounted to plain error that was not harmless.”); see also State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 22, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 10 2020See State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 16, 450 P.3d 418 (“Given the importance of credibility . . . , we have grave doubts concerning the fairness of the trial and conclude that the [erroneous] admission of [evidence] amounted to plain error that was not harmless.”); Duran, 2015-NMCA-015, ¶ 24 (concluding the admission of improper testimony was harmful because, even though the testimony was only discussed briefly, “it was designed to lead the jury to . . . [make] an inference that would support [the v]ictim’s credibility”); see also State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 22, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2 | 1 | 2 |
State v. Vargasgreen2 sentences2022State v. Vargas, 2016-NMCA-038, ¶ 24 , 368 P.3d 1232 . 2022See Vargas, 2016-NMCA-038, ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fernandezgreen1 sentence2026See State v. Fernandez, 2023-NMSC-005 , 528 P.3d 621, ¶ 24 (stating factors to assess the probable effect of evidentiary error); State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 25, 36 , 275 P.3d 110 (establishing that nonconstitutional error is reversible only where there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict). 1 {13} When speaking to the police on the day Victim’s body was found, Defendant 2 also stated that at Victim’s workplace there was a big man with a dark complexion 3 who made her uncomfortable. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sommergreen2 sentences2023See Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 42-43; see, e.g., State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070 , ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 58 , 878 P.2d 1007 (denying a motion to amend the docketing statement based upon a determination that the argument sought to be raised was not viable). {7} Defendant also argues, as he did in his docketing statement, that the evidence was insufficient to establish Defendant drove impaired to the slightest degree. [MIO 21- 23] However, Defendant’s alternative version of the facts and identification of apparent inconsistencies in the evidence are not grounds for us to conclude the evidence was insuffi 2023See Moore, 1989-NMCA-073 , ¶¶ 42-43; see, e.g., State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070 , ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 58 , 878 P.2d 1007 (denying a motion to amend the docketing statement based upon a determination that the argument sought to be raised was not viable). {7} Defendant also argues, as he did in his docketing statement, that the evidence was insufficient to establish Defendant drove impaired to the slightest degree. [MIO 21- 23] However, Defendant’s alternative version of the facts and identification of apparent inconsistencies in the evidence are not grounds for us to conclude the evidence was insuffi | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2023See Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 23 (explaining that “evidence of the defendant’s guilt apart from the error” should be considered when assessing “whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict”); see, e.g., State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶¶ 12-13 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 (citing the particular exculpatory testimony that a missing witness—described by the defendant as “the whole show for the [d]efense”—would have given). {6} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, and we therefore deny 2023See Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 23 (explaining that “evidence of the defendant’s guilt apart from the error” should be considered when assessing “whether there is a reasonable probability that the error contributed to the verdict”); see, e.g., State v. Torres, 1999-NMSC-010, ¶¶ 12-13 , 127 N.M. 20 , 976 P.2d 20 (citing the particular exculpatory testimony that a missing witness—described by the defendant as “the whole show for the [d]efense”—would have given). {6} In light of the foregoing, we conclude that Defendant was not prejudiced by the trial court’s evidentiary ruling, and we therefore deny | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pattersongreen1 sentence2022See State v. Patterson, 2017-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 395 P.3d 543 (observing that the state bears the burden to prove that an evidentiary error is harmless, and that, in the absence of an argument why the error was harmless, this Court will not guess at what that argument might be); see also State v. Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 32 , 305 P.3d 936 (concluding that a nonconstitutional error was harmless where “the [s]tate satisfies [the appellate court] that there is no reasonable probability that [the improperly admitted evidence] affected th[e] verdict and contributed to [the d]efendant’s convictions” (in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Durangreen1 sentence2020See State v. Garcia, 2019-NMCA-056 , ¶ 16, 450 P.3d 418 (“Given the importance of credibility . . . , we have grave doubts concerning the fairness of the trial and conclude that the [erroneous] admission of [evidence] amounted to plain error that was not harmless.”); Duran, 2015-NMCA-015, ¶ 24 (concluding the admission of improper testimony was harmful because, even though the testimony was only discussed briefly, “it was designed to lead the jury to . . . [make] an inference that would support [the v]ictim’s credibility”); see also State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 22, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carillogreen1 sentence2018See Carrillo, 2017-NMSC-023, ¶ 39 (“Improperly 19 admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be 11 1 harmful.”(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Astorga, 2015- 2 NMSC-007, ¶ 43, 343 P.3d 1245 (“Absent a constitutional violation, we look to 3 whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.”). 4 B. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Diazgreen | 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. Leyba
green
2 sentences2021“To put the error in context, we often look at the other, non-objectionable evidence of guilt, not for a sufficiency-of-the-evidence analysis, but to evaluate what role the error played at trial.” State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 1215 . {12} Defendant argues that the gun evidence created the impression that Defendant was dangerous and that, in turn, encouraged the jury to convict him of trafficking a controlled substance rather than simple possession. 2021“To put the error in context, we often look at the other, non-objectionable evidence of guilt, not for a sufficiency-of-the- evidence analysis, but to evaluate what role the error played at trial.” State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, ¶ 24 , 289 P.3d 1215 . {8} As we noted above, evidence related to Defendant’s prior conviction was admissible to impeach his credibility consistent with Rule 11-609. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Barr
green
2 sentences2012Barr, 2009-NMSC-024 , ¶ 53 5 (emphasis added). “[N]on-constitutional error is reversible only if the reviewing court 6 is able to say, in the context of the specific evidence presented at trial, that it is 7 reasonably probable that the jury’s verdict would have been different but for the 8 error.” Id. ¶ 54; see ¶ 51 (noting that the harmless error standard for non-constitutional 9 errors is lower than the harmless error standard for constitutional errors); see also id. 10 ¶ 54 (observing that “the reasonable probability standard requires a greater degree of 11 likelihood that a particular err 2012We reaffirm that holding here. {37} Barr then discussed the "long-standing three-part test" from Moore , which we noted "makes no mention of the `reasonable possibility' standard." Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 52 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Cordova
green
1 sentence2026As Defendant admits, “meeting with witnesses prior to trial is legitimate preparation.” [RB 7] While Defendant speculates as to what occurred during the witness interview, Defendant provides neither citation to the record proper nor citation to caselaw to support his argument that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct by refreshing the witness’s memory with the witness’s own recorded statements. [BIC 14-19; RB 5-8] See State v. Cordova, 2014-NMCA-081, ¶ 10 , 331 P.3d 980 (“[A]rgument of counsel is not evidence.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Las Cruces Professional Fire Fighters & International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces
green
2 sentences2025Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 329 , 940 P.2d 177 (stating that “we will not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder”). {9} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {10} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2025Fire Fighters v. City of Las Cruces, 1997-NMCA-044, ¶ 12 , 123 N.M. 329 , 940 P.2d 177 (stating that “we will not reweigh the evidence nor substitute our judgment for that of the fact finder”). {9} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {10} IT IS SO ORDERED. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Trujillo
green
2 sentences2025An isolated, minor impropriety ordinarily is not sufficient to warrant reversal, because a fair trial is not necessarily a perfect one.” State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {20} To find prosecutorial misconduct under a fundamental error standard, “we must be convinced that the prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d 2025An isolated, minor impropriety ordinarily is not sufficient to warrant reversal, because a fair trial is not necessarily a perfect one.” State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 , 131 N.M. 709 , 42 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {20} To find prosecutorial misconduct under a fundamental error standard, “we must be convinced that the prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” See State v. Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 , 147 N.M. 351 , 223 P.3d | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Gutierrez
green
2 sentences2024“The [s]tate has the burden of establishing that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Gutierrez, 2007-NMSC-033, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 1 , 162 P.3d 156 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable possibility it affected the verdict.” Tollardo, 2012-NMSC- 008, ¶ 36 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2024“The [s]tate has the burden of establishing that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Gutierrez, 2007-NMSC-033, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 1 , 162 P.3d 156 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable possibility it affected the verdict.” Tollardo, 2012-NMSC- 008, ¶ 36 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Hernandez
green
1 sentence2022“Reviewing courts are to evaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the error, including examining the error itself, the source of the error, the emphasis on the error, and whether the error was cumulative or introduced new facts.” State v. Hernandez, 2017-NMCA-020, ¶ 20 , 388 P.3d 1016 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Druktenis
green
2 sentences2021Defendant addressed prejudice for the first time in his reply brief, and then only summarily, stating, “Under the circumstances of the case, the [blood alcohol] test results—the only scientific evidence at trial—affected the verdict beyond a reasonable probability.” Putting aside the fact that we do not consider issues raised for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief, State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 122 , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 , Defendant’s failure to support or develop his argument is fatal to his claim. 2021Defendant addressed prejudice for the first time in his reply brief, and then only summarily, stating, “Under the circumstances of the case, the [blood alcohol] test results—the only scientific evidence at trial—affected the verdict beyond a reasonable probability.” Putting aside the fact that we do not consider issues raised for the first time in an appellant’s reply brief, State v. Druktenis, 2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 122 , 135 N.M. 223 , 86 P.3d 1050 , Defendant’s failure to support or develop his argument is fatal to his claim. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Pacheco
green
2 sentences2020Only when the “evidence of guilt is overwhelming, such that the prosecutorial impropriety is insignificant by comparison, [may] a conclusion that the error is not fundamental . . . be warranted.” State v. Pacheco, 2007-NMCA-140, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 773 , 170 P.3d 1011 (internal quotation marks omitted). {19} Considered in sum, the prosecutor’s comments on Defendant’s silence during opening statement, direct examination of Detective Tallman, cross-examination of Defendant, and closing argument were cumulatively powerful. 2020Only when the “evidence of guilt is overwhelming, such that the prosecutorial impropriety is insignificant by comparison, [may] a conclusion that the error is not fundamental . . . be warranted.” State v. Pacheco, 2007-NMCA-140, ¶ 18 , 142 N.M. 773 , 170 P.3d 1011 (internal quotation marks omitted). {19} Considered in sum, the prosecutor’s comments on Defendant’s silence during opening statement, direct examination of Detective Tallman, cross-examination of Defendant, and closing argument were cumulatively powerful. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2019“To find fundamental error, we must be convinced that the prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[W]e will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the fundamental integrity of the judicial process.” Id. {10} “During closing argument, both the prosecution and defense are permitted wide latitude, and th 2019“To find fundamental error, we must be convinced that the prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[W]e will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the fundamental integrity of the judicial process.” Id. {10} “During closing argument, both the prosecution and defense are permitted wide latitude, and th | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Lamure
green
2 sentences2018Based 10 on our review of the facts, ample evidence was presented at trial—firing the handgun 11 at Deputy Salter on two different and distinct occasions, attenuated in time—from 12 which the jury could conclude that “Defendant intended to kill [Deputy] Salter.” We 13 are unconvinced that the prosecutor’s conduct was error or fundamental error, State 14 v. Lamure, 1992-NMCA-137 , ¶ 29, 115 N.M. 61 , 846 P.2d 1070 , much less “created 15 a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s 16 deliberations.” Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citat 2018Based 10 on our review of the facts, ample evidence was presented at trial—firing the handgun 11 at Deputy Salter on two different and distinct occasions, attenuated in time—from 12 which the jury could conclude that “Defendant intended to kill [Deputy] Salter.” We 13 are unconvinced that the prosecutor’s conduct was error or fundamental error, State 14 v. Lamure, 1992-NMCA-137 , ¶ 29, 115 N.M. 61 , 846 P.2d 1070 , much less “created 15 a reasonable probability that the error was a significant factor in the jury’s 16 deliberations.” Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citat | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Lovett
green
1 sentence2015When evaluating whether a violation of evidentiary rules was harmless, “we ask whether there [was] a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict.” Lovett, 2012-NMSC-036, ¶ 52 . {30} The jury did not convict Defendant of any charge that related to the contested testimony of Dr. Ornelas. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Campos v. Bravo
green
2 sentences2015When reviewing for fundamental error, we “first 19 determine if error occurred; if so, we next determine whether that error was 7 1 fundamental.” Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 8 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 . 2 In the context of prosecutorial misconduct, we “must be convinced that the 3 prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant 4 factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” 5 Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 6 {13} The State’s remarks in this case regarding De 2015When reviewing for fundamental error, we “first 19 determine if error occurred; if so, we next determine whether that error was 7 1 fundamental.” Campos v. Bravo, 2007-NMSC-021, ¶ 8 , 141 N.M. 801 , 161 P.3d 846 . 2 In the context of prosecutorial misconduct, we “must be convinced that the 3 prosecutor’s conduct created a reasonable probability that the error was a significant 4 factor in the jury’s deliberations in relation to the rest of the evidence before them.” 5 Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 6 {13} The State’s remarks in this case regarding De | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Casaus green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Clark green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Isiah green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Mu'Min v. Virginia green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.