9 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2023 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. Osbornegreen2 sentences2023See State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶¶ 35, 38, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (explaining that the failure to instruct the jury on the essential elements of an offense may constitute fundamental error, even if the defendant failed to object to an inadequate instruction). {19} Determining fundamental error is a two-step inquiry: first, we determine whether error occurred. 2023See State v. Osborne, 1991-NMSC-032 , ¶¶ 35, 38, 111 N.M. 654 , 808 P.2d 624 (explaining that the failure to instruct the jury on the essential elements of an offense may constitute fundamental error, even if the defendant failed to object to an inadequate instruction). {19} Determining fundamental error is a two-step inquiry: first, we determine whether error occurred. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Contrerasgreen2 sentences2020Furthermore, even when a defendant has “offered an inadequate instruction on mistake of fact,” this Court must reverse the defendant’s conviction under the doctrine of fundamental error when the defendant “introduced evidence that would allow the jury to acquit under a correct statement of the law.” State v. Bunce, 1993-NMSC-057 , ¶ 15, 116 N.M. 284 , 861 P.2d 965 . {27} “Mistake of fact is a defense when it negates the existence of the mental state essential to the crime charged.” Contreras, 2007-NMCA-119, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2020“The [district] court need not give a mistake of fact instruction where the intent element of the crime is adequately defined by the other instructions given by the [district] court.” Id. (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see Bunce, 1993-NMSC-057 , ¶ 10 (“The critical inquiry is whether the instructions as given adequately define the intent necessary to convict[.]”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences1991As we said in State v. Clark, 108 N.M. at 296 , 772 P.2d at 330 (citations omitted), “An exception to the general rule barring review of questions not properly preserved below * * * applies in cases which involve fundamental error. 1991As we said in State v. Clark, 108 N.M. at 296 , 772 P.2d at 330 (citations omitted), “An exception to the general rule barring review of questions not properly preserved below * * * applies in cases which involve fundamental error. | 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. Silva
green
2 sentences2013Under fundamental error review, we will not reverse the jury verdict unless it is necessary to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2013Under fundamental error review, we will not reverse the jury verdict unless it is necessary to prevent a “miscarriage of justice.” State v. Silva, 2008-NMSC-051, ¶ 13 , 144 N.M. 815 , 192 P.3d 1192 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Bunce
green
2 sentences2020Furthermore, even when a defendant has “offered an inadequate instruction on mistake of fact,” this Court must reverse the defendant’s conviction under the doctrine of fundamental error when the defendant “introduced evidence that would allow the jury to acquit under a correct statement of the law.” State v. Bunce, 1993-NMSC-057 , ¶ 15, 116 N.M. 284 , 861 P.2d 965 . {27} “Mistake of fact is a defense when it negates the existence of the mental state essential to the crime charged.” Contreras, 2007-NMCA-119, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2020Furthermore, even when a defendant has “offered an inadequate instruction on mistake of fact,” this Court must reverse the defendant’s conviction under the doctrine of fundamental error when the defendant “introduced evidence that would allow the jury to acquit under a correct statement of the law.” State v. Bunce, 1993-NMSC-057 , ¶ 15, 116 N.M. 284 , 861 P.2d 965 . {27} “Mistake of fact is a defense when it negates the existence of the mental state essential to the crime charged.” Contreras, 2007-NMCA-119, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Azar v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America
green
2 sentences2015Co. of Am., 2003-NMCA-062, ¶ 24 , 133 N.M. 669 , 68 3 P.3d 909 . 2015Co. of Am., 2003-NMCA-062, ¶ 24 , 133 N.M. 669 , 68 3 P.3d 909 . | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Acosta
green
2 sentences1998See Rule 5-608(A) & (D) NMRA 1998; see also State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662 , 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991) (stating it is irrelevant for purposes of appeal that the defendant was partially responsible for jury instruction error because he failed to object to an inadequate instruction); State v. Acosta, 1997-NMCA-035, ¶ 7 , 123 N.M. 273 , 939 P.2d 1081 (stating use of jury instruction that omits an essential element of the offense can be grounds for reversal even when omission caused by the defendant’s own actions), cert. quashed, 124 N.M. 312 , 950 P.2d 285 (1997). 1998See Rule 5-608(A) & (D) NMRA 1998; see also State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 662 , 808 P.2d 624, 632 (1991) (stating it is irrelevant for purposes of appeal that the defendant was partially responsible for jury instruction error because he failed to object to an inadequate instruction); State v. Acosta, 1997-NMCA-035, ¶ 7 , 123 N.M. 273 , 939 P.2d 1081 (stating use of jury instruction that omits an essential element of the offense can be grounds for reversal even when omission caused by the defendant’s own actions), cert. quashed, 124 N.M. 312 , 950 P.2d 285 (1997). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
State v. Houston
green
2 sentences1965State v. Houston, 33 N.M. 259 , 263 P. 754 ; Ward v. State, 235 Ind. 531 , 135 N.E.2d 509 . 1965State v. Houston, 33 N.M. 259 , 263 P. 754 ; Ward v. State, 235 Ind. 531 , 135 N.E.2d 509 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Ward v. State
neutral
2 sentences1965State v. Houston, 33 N.M. 259 , 263 P. 754 ; Ward v. State, 235 Ind. 531 , 135 N.E.2d 509 . 1965State v. Houston, 33 N.M. 259 , 263 P. 754 ; Ward v. State, 235 Ind. 531 , 135 N.E.2d 509 . | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.