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.
9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2023 2 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. Rojogreen2 sentences2023Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) NMRA; see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (“Failure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error . . . [which] arises when [there is] misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2 Fundamental error analysis involves two basic steps. 2023Rule 12-321(B)(2)(c) NMRA; see State v. Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 , 126 N.M. 438 , 971 P.2d 829 (“Failure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error . . . [which] arises when [there is] misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2 Fundamental error analysis involves two basic steps. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Oroscogreen2 sentences2004"The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done." State v. Orosco, 113 N.M. 780, 784 , 833 P.2d 1146, 1150 (1992). 2004"The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done." State v. Orosco, 113 N.M. 780, 784 , 833 P.2d 1146, 1150 (1992). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Chamberlaingreen2 sentences2004See Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 730 , 819 P.2d at 680 ("Failure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error."). 2004See Chamberlain, 112 N.M. at 730 , 819 P.2d at 680 ("Failure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error."). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gonzalesred2 sentences1998At trial, the prosecutor cross-examined Defendant’s expert on criminal investigations concerning the use of a background check as an investigative tool. 2 During the State’s rebuttal of Defendant’s closing argument, the prosecutor reminded the jury of Antillon’s testimony that he did not kill the victim and juxtaposed that testimony against Defendant’s failure to make a similar statement during his trial testimony. 3 Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to these aspects of the prosecutor’s cross-examination or closing argument at trial. {55} “Failure to make a timely objection to alleged i 1998At trial, the prosecutor cross-examined Defendant’s expert on criminal investigations concerning the use of a background check as an investigative tool. 2 During the State’s rebuttal of Defendant’s closing argument, the prosecutor reminded the jury of Antillon’s testimony that he did not kill the victim and juxtaposed that testimony against Defendant’s failure to make a similar statement during his trial testimony. 3 Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to these aspects of the prosecutor’s cross-examination or closing argument at trial. {55} “Failure to make a timely objection to alleged i | 2 | 2 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1992State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 296 , 772 P.2d 322, 330 (1989). 1992State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 296 , 772 P.2d 322, 330 (1989). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wildgrubegreen2 sentences2021See State v. Wildgrube, 2003- NMCA-108, ¶ 20, 134 N.M. 262 , 75 P.3d 862 (stating that when a prosecutorial misconduct “claim has not been properly preserved by a specific and timely objection at trial, we have the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error”); see also Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 (explaining that the “[f]ailure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error[,]” which can arise when a “prosecutor engages in misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (in 2021See State v. Wildgrube, 2003- NMCA-108, ¶ 20, 134 N.M. 262 , 75 P.3d 862 (stating that when a prosecutorial misconduct “claim has not been properly preserved by a specific and timely objection at trial, we have the discretion to review the claim on appeal for fundamental error”); see also Rojo, 1999-NMSC-001, ¶ 55 (explaining that the “[f]ailure to make a timely objection to alleged improper argument bars review on appeal, unless the impropriety constitutes fundamental error[,]” which can arise when a “prosecutor engages in misconduct that compromises the defendant’s right to a fair trial” (in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Trujillogreen1 sentence2021“Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” Trujillo, 2002-NMSC-005, ¶ 52 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 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. Ocon
green
1 sentence2023First, we determine “whether error occurred.” State v. Ocon, 2021-NMCA-032, ¶ 7 , 493 P.3d 448 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Ocon
green
1 sentence2023First, we determine “whether error occurred.” State v. Ocon, 2021-NMCA-032, ¶ 7 , 493 P.3d 448 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.