Bruton rule in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2014 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.

Followed or applied (20)

Case	Followed	Cited
United States v. Berriosgreen ca3 · 2012 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[BJecause Bruton is no more than a by-product of the Confrontation Clause, the [United States Supreme] Court’s holdings in Davis and Crawford likewise limit Bruton to testimonial statements.”); United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 , 789 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause upon which it is premised, does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay statements.”). 2013See United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[B]ecause Bruton is no more than a by-product of the Confrontation Clause, the [United States Supreme] Court’s holdings in Davis and Crawford likewise limit Bruton to testimonial statements.”); United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 , 789 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause upon which it is premised, does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay statements.”).	2	2
United States v. Smallsgreen ca10 · 2010 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[BJecause Bruton is no more than a by-product of the Confrontation Clause, the [United States Supreme] Court’s holdings in Davis and Crawford likewise limit Bruton to testimonial statements.”); United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 , 789 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause upon which it is premised, does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay statements.”). 2013See United States v. Berrios, 676 F.3d 118, 128 (3d Cir. 2012) (“[B]ecause Bruton is no more than a by-product of the Confrontation Clause, the [United States Supreme] Court’s holdings in Davis and Crawford likewise limit Bruton to testimonial statements.”); United States v. Smalls, 605 F.3d 765 , 789 n.2 (10th Cir. 2010) (“[T]he Bruton rule, like the Confrontation Clause upon which it is premised, does not apply to nontestimonial hearsay statements.”).	2	2
Bruton v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1968 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1979–2014 2 sentences 2014See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 137 (holding that 2 statements offended the Confrontation Clause when they implicated the defendant); 3 see United States v. Clark, 717 F.3d 790, 814 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Bruton’s rule is a 4 narrow one; it applies only when the co-defendant’s statement is so inculpatory as to 5 the defendant that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be 6 ignored.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2014Additionally, the Bruton 7 rule does not apply to a statement that is not “incriminating on its face, and [becomes] 8 so only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.” Richardson v. Marsh, 9 481 U.S. 200, 208 (1987).1 10 {12} While the Bruton court spoke of the use of a statement that would constitute “a 11 substantial threat to [the defendant’s] right to confront the witnesses against him,” we 12 have previously established that such a “substantial threat” requires reversal only 13 when there is prejudice. 391 U.S. at 137 .	1	2
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Lopez, 2007-NMSC-037, ¶ 17 (conducting an analysis of a co- 15 defendant’s statements and then assessing the impact those statements had on the 16 jury). 17 {11} While Bruton applies only to testimonial statements, State v. Gurule, 18 2013-NMSC-025 , ¶ 40, 303 P.3d 838 , and testimony before a grand jury is 19 unequivocally testimonial, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), 20 Defendants acknowledge that statements that are not inculpatory of the complaining 7 1 defendant do not implicate Bruton.	1	1
Gray v. Marylandgreen scotus · 1998 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014A statement that is 18 inferentially inculpatory that “[does] not refer directly to the defendant and . . . 19 [becomes] incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ ” 20 Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 196 (1998) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-09 ) 21 (“[E]vidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the 22 practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce.”). 8 1 jury convicted the defendant for illegitimate reasons.” State v. Padilla, 1998-NMCA- 2 088, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 665 , 964 P.2d 829 (citations omitt 2014A statement that is 18 inferentially inculpatory that “[does] not refer directly to the defendant and . . . 19 [becomes] incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ ” 20 Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 196 (1998) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-09 ) 21 (“[E]vidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the 22 practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce.”). 8 1 jury convicted the defendant for illegitimate reasons.” State v. Padilla, 1998-NMCA- 2 088, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 665 , 964 P.2d 829 (citations omitt	1	1
United States v. Clarkgreen ca10 · 2013 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Bruton, 391 U.S. at 137 (holding that 2 statements offended the Confrontation Clause when they implicated the defendant); 3 see United States v. Clark, 717 F.3d 790, 814 (10th Cir. 2013) (“Bruton’s rule is a 4 narrow one; it applies only when the co-defendant’s statement is so inculpatory as to 5 the defendant that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be 6 ignored.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).	1	1
Brown v. United Statesgreen scotus · 1973 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1973) (“We reject the 15 notion that a Bruton error can never be harmless. [A] defendant is entitled to a fair 16 trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.” (emphasis added) (internal 17 quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2014Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 231-32 (1973) (“We reject the 15 notion that a Bruton error can never be harmless. [A] defendant is entitled to a fair 16 trial but not a perfect one, for there are no perfect trials.” (emphasis added) (internal 17 quotation marks and citation omitted)).	1	1
State v. Lopezgreen nm · 2007 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Lopez, 2007-NMSC-037, ¶ 17 (conducting an analysis of a co- 15 defendant’s statements and then assessing the impact those statements had on the 16 jury). 17 {11} While Bruton applies only to testimonial statements, State v. Gurule, 18 2013-NMSC-025 , ¶ 40, 303 P.3d 838 , and testimony before a grand jury is 19 unequivocally testimonial, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), 20 Defendants acknowledge that statements that are not inculpatory of the complaining 7 1 defendant do not implicate Bruton.	1	1
State v. Gurulegreen nm · 2013 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 1 sentence 2014See Lopez, 2007-NMSC-037, ¶ 17 (conducting an analysis of a co- 15 defendant’s statements and then assessing the impact those statements had on the 16 jury). 17 {11} While Bruton applies only to testimonial statements, State v. Gurule, 18 2013-NMSC-025 , ¶ 40, 303 P.3d 838 , and testimony before a grand jury is 19 unequivocally testimonial, Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 (2004), 20 Defendants acknowledge that statements that are not inculpatory of the complaining 7 1 defendant do not implicate Bruton.	1	1
Richardson v. Marshgreen scotus · 1987 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014 2 sentences 2014A statement that is 18 inferentially inculpatory that “[does] not refer directly to the defendant and . . . 19 [becomes] incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ ” 20 Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 196 (1998) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-09 ) 21 (“[E]vidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the 22 practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce.”). 8 1 jury convicted the defendant for illegitimate reasons.” State v. Padilla, 1998-NMCA- 2 088, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 665 , 964 P.2d 829 (citations omitt 2014A statement that is 18 inferentially inculpatory that “[does] not refer directly to the defendant and . . . 19 [becomes] incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ ” 20 Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 196 (1998) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-09 ) 21 (“[E]vidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the 22 practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce.”). 8 1 jury convicted the defendant for illegitimate reasons.” State v. Padilla, 1998-NMCA- 2 088, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 665 , 964 P.2d 829 (citations omitt	1	1
State v. Finnellgreen nm · 1984 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Thurmangreen nmctapp · 1972 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Aragongreen nmctapp · 1993 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Roybalgreen nmctapp · 1988 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Trujillogreen nm · 1981 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Martinezgreen nmctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Herreragreen nm · 1985 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	1
State v. Rondeaugreen nm · 1976 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004 2 sentences 2004State v. Rondeau, 89 N.M. 408, 416 , 553 P.2d 688, 696 (1976) ("[T]he admission of those statements which might possibly be considered violative of the Bruton rule was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt since the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendants' statements was insignificant by comparison. 2004State v. Rondeau, 89 N.M. 408, 416 , 553 P.2d 688, 696 (1976) ("[T]he admission of those statements which might possibly be considered violative of the Bruton rule was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt since the properly admitted evidence of guilt was overwhelming, and the prejudicial effect of the codefendants' statements was insignificant by comparison.	1	1
State v. Petersongreen nmctapp · 1985 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1998–1998 2 sentences 1998Cf. State v. Peterson, 103 N.M. 638, 642 , 711 P.2d 915, 919 (Ct.App. 1985) (defendant “ought not be heard to complain because the very relief he requested was granted”). {13} Second, Defendant maintains that the State committed a Bruton violation when Detective Richard Dilley testified that he obtained Sanchez’ name through a license plate inquiry and subsequently compiled a photo array containing Defendant’s photograph. 1998Cf. State v. Peterson, 103 N.M. 638, 642 , 711 P.2d 915, 919 (Ct.App. 1985) (defendant “ought not be heard to complain because the very relief he requested was granted”). {13} Second, Defendant maintains that the State committed a Bruton violation when Detective Richard Dilley testified that he obtained Sanchez’ name through a license plate inquiry and subsequently compiled a photo array containing Defendant’s photograph.	1	1
Schneble v. Floridagreen scotus · 1972 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1976–1976 2 sentences 1976See Schneble v. Florida, supra, 405 U.S. at 430 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 1976See Schneble v. Florida, supra, 405 U.S. at 430 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Padilla green nmctapp · 1998 2 sentences 2014A statement that is 18 inferentially inculpatory that “[does] not refer directly to the defendant and . . . 19 [becomes] incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ ” 20 Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 196 (1998) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-09 ) 21 (“[E]vidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the 22 practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce.”). 8 1 jury convicted the defendant for illegitimate reasons.” State v. Padilla, 1998-NMCA- 2 088, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 665 , 964 P.2d 829 (citations omitt 2014A statement that is 18 inferentially inculpatory that “[does] not refer directly to the defendant and . . . 19 [becomes] incriminating ‘only when linked with evidence introduced later at trial.’ ” 20 Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 196 (1998) (citing Richardson, 481 U.S. at 208-09 ) 21 (“[E]vidence requiring linkage differs from evidence incriminating on its face in the 22 practical effects which application of the Bruton exception would produce.”). 8 1 jury convicted the defendant for illegitimate reasons.” State v. Padilla, 1998-NMCA- 2 088, ¶ 14, 125 N.M. 665 , 964 P.2d 829 (citations omitt	1	2014–2014
Parker v. Randolph red scotus · 1979 2 sentences 2006Parker, 442 U.S. at 67-68 , 99 S.Ct. 2132 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2006Parker, 442 U.S. at 67-68 , 99 S.Ct. 2132 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	1	2006–2006
State v. Gutierrez green nmctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P. 2004See Schneble ...."); accord, e.g., State v. Herrera, 102 N.M. 254, 259 , 694 P.2d 510, 515 (1985) (relying on overwhelming evidence of guilt for constitutional error); State v. Finnell, 101 N.M. 732, 738 , 688 P.2d 769, 775 (1984) (same); State v. Trujillo, 95 N.M. 535, 541 , 624 P.2d 44, 50 (1981) (same); State v. Gutierrez, 2003-NMCA-077, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 797 , 70 P.3d 787 (same and citing cases); State v. Aragon, 116 N.M. 291, 296 , 861 P.2d 972, 977 (Ct.App.1993) (same); State v. Roybal, 107 N.M. 309, 312 , 756 P.2d 1204, 1207 (Ct.App.1988) (same); State v. Martinez, 99 N.M. 48, 52 , 653 P.	1	2004–2004
Chapman v. California red scotus · 1967 2 sentences 1976See Schneble v. Florida, supra, 405 U.S. at 430 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967). 1976See Schneble v. Florida, supra, 405 U.S. at 430 , 92 S.Ct. 1056 ; Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 , 87 S. Ct. 824 , 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967).	1	1976–1976

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-28-2 (4)

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.

Where else courts name it

GA 133 (1973–2026) CA 129 (1969–2026) NY 107 (1968–2024) PA 87 (1973–2026) IL 69 (1969–2019) TN 66 (1969–2025) OH 48 (1978–2026) MA 46 (1969–2019) FL 41 (1969–2026) NC 24 (1971–2023) OK 22 (1973–2020) IN 22 (1971–2016) WA 21 (1976–2026) MD 21 (1972–2022) TX 19 (1970–2013) LA 15 (1969–2012) KY 14 (1973–2011) MI 14 (1971–2016) DC 13 (1974–2024) AZ 13 (1969–2014) KS 13 (1978–2006) NV 12 (1970–2020) MS 12 (1986–2025) CT 11 (1970–2018) NJ 10 (1971–2021) NM 8 (1976–2014) ME 8 (1972–2013) AR 8 (1975–2004) AK 7 (1973–2017) AL 7 (1983–1996) SC 7 (1976–2017) IA 7 (1981–2015) OR 6 (1990–2025) ID 6 (1985–2025) WI 5 (1978–2019) HI 4 (1977–1993) UT 4 (1987–2021) MT 4 (1977–1999) VA 4 (1997–2023) RI 3 (1971–2025) MO 3 (1989–1997) DE 3 (1994–2018) VI 2 (2012–2012) SD 2 (1993–2009) NH 2 (1975–2002)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check