circumstantial evidence rule in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1971–1995 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 (5)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Madridgreen nmctapp · 1972 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1976–1995 2 sentences 1995This statement is consistent with a long line of our cases in which we have said that the circumstantial evidence rule is not a concept independent of the substantial evidence inquiry, State v. Madrid, 83 N.M. 603, 605 , 495 P.2d 383, 385 (Ct.App.1972), and that the jury, by its verdict, has necessarily found the hypothesis of guilt more reasonable than any of the theories of innocence advanced by the defendant. 1995This statement is consistent with a long line of our cases in which we have said that the circumstantial evidence rule is not a concept independent of the substantial evidence inquiry, State v. Madrid, 83 N.M. 603, 605 , 495 P.2d 383, 385 (Ct.App.1972), and that the jury, by its verdict, has necessarily found the hypothesis of guilt more reasonable than any of the theories of innocence advanced by the defendant.	1	2
State v. Apodacagreen nm · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Although the majority and dissent in Davis may appear to part company on the applicability of the circumstantial evidence rule, our Supreme Court recently explained that the circumstantial evidence rule does not mean anything different than that “ ‘the evidence supporting the verdict [must] provide a sufficient basis upon which to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 766 , 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994) (quoting State v. Vigil, 110 N.M. 254, 256 , 794 P.2d 728, 730 (1990)) (alteration in original). 1995Although the majority and dissent in Davis may appear to part company on the applicability of the circumstantial evidence rule, our Supreme Court recently explained that the circumstantial evidence rule does not mean anything different than that “ ‘the evidence supporting the verdict [must] provide a sufficient basis upon which to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 766 , 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994) (quoting State v. Vigil, 110 N.M. 254, 256 , 794 P.2d 728, 730 (1990)) (alteration in original).	1	1
State v. Hubbardgreen nmctapp · 1992 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995State v. Hubbard, 113 N.M. 538, 540 , 828 P.2d 971, 973 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 113 N.M. 352 , 826 P.2d 573 (1992). 1995State v. Hubbard, 113 N.M. 538, 540 , 828 P.2d 971, 973 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 113 N.M. 352 , 826 P.2d 573 (1992).	1	1
State v. Vigilgreen nm · 1990 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995Although the majority and dissent in Davis may appear to part company on the applicability of the circumstantial evidence rule, our Supreme Court recently explained that the circumstantial evidence rule does not mean anything different than that “ ‘the evidence supporting the verdict [must] provide a sufficient basis upon which to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 766 , 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994) (quoting State v. Vigil, 110 N.M. 254, 256 , 794 P.2d 728, 730 (1990)) (alteration in original). 1995Although the majority and dissent in Davis may appear to part company on the applicability of the circumstantial evidence rule, our Supreme Court recently explained that the circumstantial evidence rule does not mean anything different than that “ ‘the evidence supporting the verdict [must] provide a sufficient basis upon which to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ” State v. Apodaca, 118 N.M. 762, 766 , 887 P.2d 756, 760 (1994) (quoting State v. Vigil, 110 N.M. 254, 256 , 794 P.2d 728, 730 (1990)) (alteration in original).	1	1
State v. Atwoodgreen nmctapp · 1971 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1973–1973 2 sentences 1973See State v. Atwood, 83 N.M. 416 , 492 P.2d 1279 (Ct.App.1971) ; State v. Madrid, supra. As we stated in State v. Madrid, supra: “Although we have answered defendant’s ‘reasonable hypothesis’ contentions, we point out that the circumstantial evidence rule is not a concept independent of the question of whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. 1973See State v. Atwood, 83 N.M. 416 , 492 P.2d 1279 (Ct.App.1971) ; State v. Madrid, supra. As we stated in State v. Madrid, supra: “Although we have answered defendant’s ‘reasonable hypothesis’ contentions, we point out that the circumstantial evidence rule is not a concept independent of the question of whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.	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 (10)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Clements green nm · 1926 2 sentences 1973As stated in State v. Clements, 31 N.M. 620 , 249 P. 1003 (1926) : ‘The rule in a circumstantial evidence case is but a special application of the general rule of reasonable doubt. 1973As stated in State v. Clements, 31 N.M. 620 , 249 P. 1003 (1926) : ‘The rule in a circumstantial evidence case is but a special application of the general rule of reasonable doubt.	2	1972–1973
State v. Easterwood green nm · 1961 2 sentences 1973Thus, he invokes the circumstantial evidence rule stated in State v. Campos, 79 N.M. 611 , 447 P.2d 20 (1968) and State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961). 1973Thus, he invokes the circumstantial evidence rule stated in State v. Campos, 79 N.M. 611 , 447 P.2d 20 (1968) and State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961).	2	1973–1973
State v. Adams green nmctapp · 1976 2 sentences 1984The defendant claims this standard is inconsistent with the earlier case of State v. Adams, 89 N.M. 737 , 557 P.2d 586 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 (1976) which states that: The circumstantial evidence rule is no more than a special application of the rule concerning reasonable doubt. 1984The defendant claims this standard is inconsistent with the earlier case of State v. Adams, 89 N.M. 737 , 557 P.2d 586 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 (1976) which states that: The circumstantial evidence rule is no more than a special application of the rule concerning reasonable doubt.	1	1984–1984
Carter Farms Company v. Hoffman-Laroche, Inc. green nmctapp · 1971 1 sentence 1982Id.	1	1982–1982
State v. Hinojos green nmctapp · 1967 2 sentences 1973State v. Hinojos, 78 N.M. 32 , 427 P. 2d 683 (Ct.App.1967). 1973State v. Hinojos, 78 N.M. 32 , 427 P. 2d 683 (Ct.App.1967).	1	1973–1973
Gregg v. State green nm · 1972 1 sentence 1973The circumstantial evidence rule is set forth in State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961) as follows: “Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon for a conviction such evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence. * * *” See also State v. Borunda, 83 N.M. 563 , 494 P.2d 976 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Beachum, 82 N.M. 204 , 477 P.2d 1019 (Ct.App.1970).	1	1973–1973
State v. Borunda green nmctapp · 1972 1 sentence 1973The circumstantial evidence rule is set forth in State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961) as follows: “Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon for a conviction such evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence. * * *” See also State v. Borunda, 83 N.M. 563 , 494 P.2d 976 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Beachum, 82 N.M. 204 , 477 P.2d 1019 (Ct.App.1970).	1	1973–1973
State v. Beachum green nmctapp · 1970 2 sentences 1973The circumstantial evidence rule is set forth in State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961) as follows: “Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon for a conviction such evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence. * * ” See also State v. Borunda, 83 N.M. 563 , 494 P.2d 976 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Beachum, 82 N.M. 204 , 477 P.2d 1019 (Ct.App.1970). 1973The circumstantial evidence rule is set forth in State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961) as follows: “Where circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon for a conviction such evidence must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused upon any rational theory and incapable of explanation upon any reasonable hypothesis of the defendant’s innocence. * *” See also State v. Borunda, 83 N.M. 563 , 494 P.2d 976 (Ct.App.1972); State v. Beachum, 82 N.M. 204 , 477 P.2d 1019 (Ct.App.1970).	1	1973–1973
State v. Campos green nm · 1968 2 sentences 1973Thus, he invokes the circumstantial evidence rule stated in State v. Campos, 79 N.M. 611 , 447 P.2d 20 (1968) and State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961). 1973Thus, he invokes the circumstantial evidence rule stated in State v. Campos, 79 N.M. 611 , 447 P.2d 20 (1968) and State v. Easterwood, 68 N.M. 464 , 362 P.2d 997 (1961).	1	1973–1973
Brown v. Globe Laboratories, Inc. green neb · 1957 2 sentences 1971Brown v. Globe Laboratories, 165 Neb. 138 , 84 N.W.2d 151 (1957). “ . . . 1971Brown v. Globe Laboratories, 165 Neb. 138 , 84 N.W.2d 151 (1957). “ . . .	1	1971–1971

Where else courts name it

MS 211 (1979–2023) MO 109 (1933–2024) LA 109 (1982–2026) FL 104 (1928–2025) MN 103 (1952–2035) NY 57 (1973–2026) CA 38 (1949–2024) TX 30 (1957–2021) IL 28 (1951–2019) GA 25 (1931–2020) SC 15 (1969–2021) NE 13 (1944–1993) AZ 11 (1967–2009) PA 10 (1943–2018) NM 8 (1971–1995) IN 8 (1980–2023) DE 8 (1962–1973) KS 7 (1973–2015) WA 7 (1971–1985) CT 7 (1991–1994) AL 6 (2001–2015) OH 6 (1982–2024) MT 6 (1938–2021) RI 5 (1973–1984) WV 5 (1974–1995) TN 5 (1960–2010) IA 5 (1938–2015) VA 4 (1989–2025) SD 4 (1978–2001) ID 4 (1983–2021) OK 4 (1982–2008) MD 3 (1968–1983) NH 2 (2012–2013) WY 2 (1975–1976) MA 2 (1981–1996) VT 2 (1983–1985) OR 2 (1942–1977) CO 2 (1972–1972) WI 2 (1986–1990)

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