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 1984–2017 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. Perrygreen2 sentences2002When Father asked Child what had happened, Child said that Defendant had pinched her, and again made a pinching motion with her fingers. {9} For a statement to be admissible under the present sense impression exception, “there must be a close proximity in time between the event and the statement.” Salgado, 1999-NMSC-008, ¶ 13 , 126 N.M. 691 , 974 P.2d 661 (asserting that reliability is enhanced by limiting the exception in time); see also State v. Perry, 95 N.M. 179, 180 , 619 P.2d 855, 856 (Ct.App.1980) (discussing the importance of contemporaneity in determining whether a statement is admiss 2002When Father asked Child what had happened, Child said that Defendant had pinched her, and again made a pinching motion with her fingers. {9} For a statement to be admissible under the present sense impression exception, “there must be a close proximity in time between the event and the statement.” Salgado, 1999-NMSC-008, ¶ 13 , 126 N.M. 691 , 974 P.2d 661 (asserting that reliability is enhanced by limiting the exception in time); see also State v. Perry, 95 N.M. 179, 180 , 619 P.2d 855, 856 (Ct.App.1980) (discussing the importance of contemporaneity in determining whether a statement is admiss | 3 | 4 |
State v. Salgadogreen2 sentences2002When Father asked Child what had happened, Child said that Defendant had pinched her, and again made a pinching motion with her fingers. {9} For a statement to be admissible under the present sense impression exception, “there must be a close proximity in time between the event and the statement.” Salgado, 1999-NMSC-008, ¶ 13 , 126 N.M. 691 , 974 P.2d 661 (asserting that reliability is enhanced by limiting the exception in time); see also State v. Perry, 95 N.M. 179, 180 , 619 P.2d 855, 856 (Ct.App.1980) (discussing the importance of contemporaneity in determining whether a statement is admiss 2002When Father asked Child what had happened, Child said that Defendant had pinched her, and again made a pinching motion with her fingers. {9} For a statement to be admissible under the present sense impression exception, “there must be a close proximity in time between the event and the statement.” Salgado, 1999-NMSC-008, ¶ 13 , 126 N.M. 691 , 974 P.2d 661 (asserting that reliability is enhanced by limiting the exception in time); see also State v. Perry, 95 N.M. 179, 180 , 619 P.2d 855, 856 (Ct.App.1980) (discussing the importance of contemporaneity in determining whether a statement is admiss | 1 | 2 |
State v. Maestasgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., State v. Maestas, 92 N.M. 135, 139-41 , 584 P.2d 182, 186-88 (Ct.App.1978) (holding statements inadmissible when made at least three hours after the declarant had been beaten). 2002See, e.g., State v. Maestas, 92 N.M. 135, 139-41 , 584 P.2d 182, 186-88 (Ct.App.1978) (holding statements inadmissible when made at least three hours after the declarant had been beaten). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen2 sentences1999See State v. Brown, 618 So.2d 629, 633 (La.Ct.App.1993) (“The exception at issue literally and narrowly interpreted, provides for sufficient indicia of reliability.”). 1999See State v. Pickens, 346 N.C. 628 , 488 S.E.2d 162, 171 (N.C.1997) (holding that the present sense impression exception is firmly rooted); Brown, 618 So.2d at 633 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pickensgreen2 sentences1999See State v. Pickens, 346 N.C. 628 , 488 S.E.2d 162, 171 (N.C.1997) (holding that the present sense impression exception is firmly rooted); Brown, 618 So.2d at 633 (same). 1999See State v. Pickens, 346 N.C. 628 , 488 S.E.2d 162, 171 (N.C.1997) (holding that the present sense impression exception is firmly rooted); Brown, 618 So.2d at 633 (same). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Casegreen2 sentences1999Rule 11-803(A) defines the present sense exception as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” {6} Defendant contends that this testimony was inadmissible, relying on State v. Case, 100 N.M. 714, 718 , 676 P.2d 241, 245 (1984), because the shooter’s identity could not be verified by the witness. 1999Rule 11-803(A) defines the present sense exception as “[a] statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” {6} Defendant contends that this testimony was inadmissible, relying on State v. Case, 100 N.M. 714, 718 , 676 P.2d 241, 245 (1984), because the shooter’s identity could not be verified by the witness. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Cookgreen2 sentences1999But see People v. Cook, 159 Misc.2d 430 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 979, 984 (Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that the present sense impression exception is not firmly rooted, in part because the New York judiciary had accepted this exception only a few months earlier and, thus, there was no “longstanding judicial and legislative experience”), aff'd, 220 A.D.2d 522 , 632 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1995). 1999But see People v. Cook, 159 Misc.2d 430 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 979, 984 (Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that the present sense impression exception is not firmly rooted, in part because the New York judiciary had accepted this exception only a few months earlier and, thus, there was no “longstanding judicial and legislative experience”), aff'd, 220 A.D.2d 522 , 632 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cartergreen2 sentences1999But see People v. Cook, 159 Misc.2d 430 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 979, 984 (Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that the present sense impression exception is not firmly rooted, in part because the New York judiciary had accepted this exception only a few months earlier and, thus, there was no “longstanding judicial and legislative experience”), aff'd, 220 A.D.2d 522 , 632 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1995). 1999But see People v. Cook, 159 Misc.2d 430 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 979, 984 (Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that the present sense impression exception is not firmly rooted, in part because the New York judiciary had accepted this exception only a few months earlier and, thus, there was no “longstanding judicial and legislative experience”), aff'd, 220 A.D.2d 522 , 632 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cookgreen2 sentences1999But see People v. Cook, 159 Misc.2d 430 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 979, 984 (Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that the present sense impression exception is not firmly rooted, in part because the New York judiciary had accepted this exception only a few months earlier and, thus, there was no “longstanding judicial and legislative experience”), aff'd, 220 A.D.2d 522 , 632 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1995). 1999But see People v. Cook, 159 Misc.2d 430 , 603 N.Y.S.2d 979, 984 (Sup.Ct.1993) (concluding that the present sense impression exception is not firmly rooted, in part because the New York judiciary had accepted this exception only a few months earlier and, thus, there was no “longstanding judicial and legislative experience”), aff'd, 220 A.D.2d 522 , 632 N.Y.S.2d 193 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chavez
green
2 sentences2017The judge must decide if the time element affects the statement’s 4 reliability and if there is any apparent motive to lie.” State v. Chavez, 2008-NMCA- 5 125, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 849 , 192 P.3d 1226 . 2017The judge must decide if the time element affects the statement’s 4 reliability and if there is any apparent motive to lie.” State v. Chavez, 2008-NMCA- 5 125, ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 849 , 192 P.3d 1226 . | 2 | 2013–2017 |
State v. Macias
green
2 sentences2013Id. 12 {31} By comparison, the underlying theory to the excited utterance exception to the 13 hearsay rule is that “the exciting event induced the declarant’s surprise, shock, or 14 nervous excitement which temporarily stills capacity for conscious fabrication and 15 makes it unlikely that the speaker would relate other than the truth.” Telles, 2011- 16 NMCA-083, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Macias, 2009-NMSC-028, ¶ 30 , 146 N.M. 378 , 210 17 P.3d 804 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2013Id. 12 {31} By comparison, the underlying theory to the excited utterance exception to the 13 hearsay rule is that “the exciting event induced the declarant’s surprise, shock, or 14 nervous excitement which temporarily stills capacity for conscious fabrication and 15 makes it unlikely that the speaker would relate other than the truth.” Telles, 2011- 16 NMCA-083, ¶ 9 (citing State v. Macias, 2009-NMSC-028, ¶ 30 , 146 N.M. 378 , 210 17 P.3d 804 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 2 | 2010–2013 |
State v. Flores
green
2 sentences2013Excited utterance and present sense impression differ in that “excited utterance 16 requires a reasonable inference that emotional stress has contributed to the making of 17 the statement, while present sense impression requires instead that the statement be 18 substantially contemporaneous with the event it is describing or explaining.” State v. 19 Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 52 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 (2010). 18 1 {30} The underlying theory in allowing a present sense impression exception to 2 hearsay is that “substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negate the 3 likelihood of d 2013Excited utterance and present sense impression differ in that “excited utterance 16 requires a reasonable inference that emotional stress has contributed to the making of 17 the statement, while present sense impression requires instead that the statement be 18 substantially contemporaneous with the event it is describing or explaining.” State v. 19 Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 52 , 147 N.M. 542 , 226 P.3d 641 (2010). 18 1 {30} The underlying theory in allowing a present sense impression exception to 2 hearsay is that “substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negate the 3 likelihood of d | 2 | 2010–2013 |
State v. Leyba
green
2 sentences2013Id. {20} We find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Navarro’s statements under the present sense impression exception. 2013Id. {20} W e find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s decision to admit Navarro’s statements under the present sense impression exception. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Bullcoming v. New Mexico
green
1 sentence2017“An out-of-court 13 statement is inadmissible unless it is specifically excluded as non-hearsay under Rule 14 11-801(D) or falls within a recognized exception in the rules of evidence, or is 15 otherwise made admissible by rule or statute.” State v. Bullcoming, 2010-NMSC-007 , 16 ¶ 33, 147 N.M. 487 , 226 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), rev’d 17 on other grounds by Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). 18 {32} Relevant here is the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. 19 Pursuant to Rule 11-803(1) NMRA, in order for a hearsay statement to be ad | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Bullcoming
green
2 sentences2017“An out-of-court 13 statement is inadmissible unless it is specifically excluded as non-hearsay under Rule 14 11-801(D) or falls within a recognized exception in the rules of evidence, or is 15 otherwise made admissible by rule or statute.” State v. Bullcoming, 2010-NMSC-007 , 16 ¶ 33, 147 N.M. 487 , 226 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), rev’d 17 on other grounds by Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). 18 {32} Relevant here is the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. 19 Pursuant to Rule 11-803(1) NMRA, in order for a hearsay statement to be ad 2017“An out-of-court 13 statement is inadmissible unless it is specifically excluded as non-hearsay under Rule 14 11-801(D) or falls within a recognized exception in the rules of evidence, or is 15 otherwise made admissible by rule or statute.” State v. Bullcoming, 2010-NMSC-007 , 16 ¶ 33, 147 N.M. 487 , 226 P.3d 1 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), rev’d 17 on other grounds by Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (2011). 18 {32} Relevant here is the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule. 19 Pursuant to Rule 11-803(1) NMRA, in order for a hearsay statement to be ad | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re Doe
green
1 sentence2013The judge must 7 decide if the time element affects the statement’s reliability and if there is any 8 apparent motive to lie.” State v. Chavez, 2008-NMSC-125 , ¶ 9, 144 N.M. 849 , 192 9 P.3d 1226 (citing State v. Perry, 95 N.M. 179, 180-81 , 619 P.2d 855, 856-57 (Ct. App. 10 1980)). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. MacIas
green
2 sentences2010A present sense impression is a “statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter.” Macias, 2009-NMSC-028, ¶ 29 , 146 N.M. 378 , 210 P.3d 804 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2010The theory underlying the present sense impression exception is that “substantial contemporaneity of event and statement negate the likelihood of deliberate or conscious misrepresentation.” Id. {52} Both excited utterances and present sense impressions were among the theories subsumed within the pre-rules res gestae cluster of exceptions. 4 Graham, supra § 803:2, at 75-100. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Ross
green
1 sentence1999Analyzing whether the statements, under the totality of surrounding circumstances, were supported by particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, we consider “four factors leading to unreliability: (1) ambiguity; (2) lack of candor; (3) faulty memory; and (4) misperception.” Id. at 24, 919 P.2d at 1089 . {13} We first address whether the present sense impression exception, under which the trial court admitted Michelle’s testimony that Harold said “Hey, Timo,” is a firmly rooted hearsay exception. | 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.