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.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1993–2016 0 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. Gainesgreen2 sentences2008See State v. Gaines, 2001-NMSC-036 , ¶ 4, 131 N.M. 347 , 36 P.3d 438 . 2008See State v. Gaines, 2001-NMSC-036 , ¶ 4, 131 N.M. 347 , 36 P.3d 438 . | 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. Munoz
green
2 sentences2014State v. Munoz, 1998-NMSC-041, ¶ 8 , 126 N.M. 371 , 970 P.2d 143 . 2014State v. Munoz, 1998-NMSC-041, ¶ 8 , 126 N.M. 371 , 970 P.2d 143 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Castillo v. City of Las Vegas
green
2 sentences2012We start with our standard of review. {26} “The propriety of a jury instruction is a mixed question of fact and law[.]” Castillo v. City of Las Vegas, 2008-NMCA-141, ¶ 17 , 145 N.M. 205 , 195 P.3d 870 . 2012We start with our standard of review. {26} “The propriety of a jury instruction is a mixed question of fact and law[.]” Castillo v. City of Las Vegas, 2008-NMCA-141, ¶ 17 , 145 N.M. 205 , 195 P.3d 870 . | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Poore v. State
green
2 sentences2016In her 17 memorandum in opposition, Defendant responds to our concern by citing to Poore v. 18 State, 1980-NMSC-035 , 94 N.M. 172 , 608 P.2d 148 , for the proposition that “when 19 considering the propriety of a jury instruction, the evidence must be examined in favor 8 1 of the defendant, to whom the instruction might be of any benefit under any 2 reasonable hypothesis.” [MIO 9] While this may be true, Poore is inapposite to the 3 question of whether an entrapment defense is available to a defendant who denies 4 committing the offense. 2016In her 17 memorandum in opposition, Defendant responds to our concern by citing to Poore v. 18 State, 1980-NMSC-035 , 94 N.M. 172 , 608 P.2d 148 , for the proposition that “when 19 considering the propriety of a jury instruction, the evidence must be examined in favor 8 1 of the defendant, to whom the instruction might be of any benefit under any 2 reasonable hypothesis.” [MIO 9] While this may be true, Poore is inapposite to the 3 question of whether an entrapment defense is available to a defendant who denies 4 committing the offense. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Salazar
green
2 sentences2010State v. 11 Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 49 , 123 N.M. 778 , 945 P.2d 996 . 2010State v. 11 Salazar, 1997-NMSC-044, ¶ 49 , 123 N.M. 778 , 945 P.2d 996 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Gregg
green
1 sentence1993Id. at 398, 492 P.2d at 1261 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.