claim of self defense in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2024 2 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 (17)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Heislergreen nm · 1954 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1999–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (“[A]n instruction on a claim of self defense or defense of another should be given if there is any evidence, even slight evidence, to support the claim” (quoted authority omitted)); State v. Heisler, 58 N.M. 446, 455 , 272 P.2d 660, 666 (1954) (“[W]here self-defense is involved in a criminal case and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish the [defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly....”) {23} Courts in other jurisdictions use varying t 2008See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (“[A]n instruction on a claim of self defense or defense of another should be given if there is any evidence, even slight evidence, to support the claim” (quoted authority omitted)); State v. Heisler, 58 N.M. 446, 455 , 272 P.2d 660, 666 (1954) (“[W]here self-defense is involved in a criminal case and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish the [defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly....”) {23} Courts in other jurisdictions use varying t	2	2
State v. Lucerogreen nm · 1998 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The exception that allows the first aggressor to invoke a claim of self- defense does not apply under the test established in Lucero {12} Under certain circumstances, even a first aggressor can establish a claim of self- defense if it is shown that “1. [t]he defendant was using force which would not ordinarily create a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm; and 2. [the victim] responded with force which would ordinarily create a substantial risk of death or great bodily harm.” UJI 14-5191A NMRA; see Lucero, 1998-NMSC-044, ¶ 7 .2 a.	1	1
United States v. Juan Carlos Elsogreen ca11 · 2005 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
United States v. David E. Martinelligreen ca11 · 2006 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
State v. Gomezgreen ariz · 2005 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
United States v. Al-Rekabigreen ca10 · 2006 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
Commonwealth v. Tiradogreen massappct · 2006 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
State v. Lopezgreen nm · 1999 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (“[A]n instruction on a claim of self defense or defense of another should be given if there is any evidence, even slight evidence, to support the claim” (quoted authority omitted)); State v. Heisler, 58 N.M. 446, 455 , 272 P.2d 660, 666 (1954) (“[W]here self-defense is involved in a criminal case and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish the [defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly....”) {23} Courts in other jurisdictions use varying t 2008See, e.g., State v. Lopez, 2000-NMSC-003, ¶ 23 , 128 N.M. 410 , 993 P.2d 727 (“[A]n instruction on a claim of self defense or defense of another should be given if there is any evidence, even slight evidence, to support the claim” (quoted authority omitted)); State v. Heisler, 58 N.M. 446, 455 , 272 P.2d 660, 666 (1954) (“[W]here self-defense is involved in a criminal case and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish the [defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly....”) {23} Courts in other jurisdictions use varying t	1	1
People v. Heflingreen mich · 1990 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
People v. Uptaingreen illappct · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
People v. Uptaingreen illappct · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
United States v. James L. Parkergreen ca8 · 2004 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 1 sentence 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
State v. Vassargreen nh · 2006 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
Cherrix v. Commonwealthgreen va · 1999 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
Marquardt v. Stategreen mdctspecapp · 2005 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008 2 sentences 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v. 2008See, e.g., United States v. Al-Rekabi, 454 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2006) (“some evidence”); Marquardt v. State, 164 Md.App. 95 , 882 A.2d 900, 921 (Ct. Spec.App.2005) (“some evidence”); State v. Vassar, 154 N.H. 370 , 910 A.2d 1193, 1195 (2006) (“more than a minutia or scintilla of evidence”); Cherrix v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 292 , 513 S.E.2d 642, 652 (1999) (“more than a scintilla of evidence”); People v. Heflin, 434 Mich. 482 , 456 N.W.2d 10, 19 (1990) (more than “a modicum of evidence”); United States v. Elso, 422 F.3d 1305, 1308 (11th Cir.2005) (“some basis in the evidence”); People v.	1	1
State v. Parishgreen nm · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999See id. at 43 , 878 P.2d at 992 . 1999See id. at 43 , 878 P.2d at 992 .	1	1
State v. Duartegreen nmctapp · 1996 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1999–1999 2 sentences 1999We agree “[a]n instruction on a claim of self defense or defense of another should be given if there is any evidence, even slight evidence, to support the claim.” State v. Duarte, 121 N.M. 553, 556 , 915 P.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.1996). “[W]here self-defense is involved in a criminal ease and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish [such defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly on all phases of the law on [that] issue____” State v. Heisler, 58 N.M. 446, 455 , 272 P.2d 660, 666 (1954). 1999We agree “[a]n instruction on a claim of self defense or defense of another should be given if there is any evidence, even slight evidence, to support the claim.” State v. Duarte, 121 N.M. 553, 556 , 915 P.2d 309, 312 (Ct.App.1996). “[W]here self-defense is involved in a criminal ease and there is any evidence, although slight, to establish [such defense], it is not only proper for the court, but its duty as well, to instruct the jury fully and clearly on all phases of the law on [that] issue____” State v. Heisler, 58 N.M. 446, 455 , 272 P.2d 660, 666 (1954).	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. Armendariz green nm · 2006 2 sentences 2013A claim of self defense has three elements: “(1) there was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant[,] (2) the defendant was in fact put in fear by the apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm and killed the victim because of that fear[,] and (3) a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have acted as the defendant did.” Id. 2013A claim of self defense has three elements: “(1) there was an appearance of immediate danger of death or great bodily harm to the defendant[,] (2) the defendant was in fact put in fear by the apparent danger of immediate death or great bodily harm and killed the victim because of that fear[,] and (3) a reasonable person in the same circumstances would have acted as the defendant did.” Id.	2	2013–2013
State v. Sarracino green nm · 1998 2 sentences 2022Toxicology Results {9} Defendant continues to challenge the exclusion of the toxicology results of the decedent’s autopsy, which allegedly showed high levels of methamphetamine and methadone. [MIO 12] “We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 P.2d 72 . {10} Defendant claims that the toxicology results were relevant to the claim of self- defense. [MIO 12] The self-defense claim was based on some evidence that the decedent armed herself with a f 2022Toxicology Results {9} Defendant continues to challenge the exclusion of the toxicology results of the decedent’s autopsy, which allegedly showed high levels of methamphetamine and methadone. [MIO 12] “We review the admission of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 P.2d 72 . {10} Defendant claims that the toxicology results were relevant to the claim of self- defense. [MIO 12] The self-defense claim was based on some evidence that the decedent armed herself with a f	1	2022–2022
State v. Branchal green nmctapp · 1984 2 sentences 1999However, we interpret this standard to require evidence that is “sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense.” Branchal, 101 N.M. at 500 , 684 P.2d at 1165 . 1999However, we interpret this standard to require evidence that is “sufficient to allow reasonable minds to differ as to all elements of the defense.” Branchal, 101 N.M. at 500 , 684 P.2d at 1165 .	1	1999–1999
State v. Bazan green nmctapp · 1977 2 sentences 1984Cf. State v. Bazan, 90 N.M. 209 , 561 P.2d 482 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 254 , 561 P.2d 1347 (1977) (court held that absent a claim of self defense under the facts presented in that case, asserted character traits were not essential elements of the defense). 1984Cf. State v. Bazan, 90 N.M. 209 , 561 P.2d 482 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 254 , 561 P.2d 1347 (1977) (court held that absent a claim of self defense under the facts presented in that case, asserted character traits were not essential elements of the defense).	1	1984–1984

Where else courts name it

IN 49 (1971–2020) TX 33 (1981–2025) PA 22 (1984–2026) CA 13 (1981–2026) OH 13 (1999–2026) IL 9 (1999–2023) NM 8 (1984–2024) AL 7 (1955–1990) WA 6 (2013–2021) MN 6 (2002–2024) CT 4 (1974–2023) GA 3 (2014–2024) MI 3 (2019–2025) TN 3 (1978–2019) IA 3 (1968–2018) MT 3 (2002–2025) SC 2 (2019–2019) DE 2 (1997–2014) NJ 2 (1997–2020) MA 2 (1980–2019) DC 2 (1990–2017) MD 2 (1987–2018) FL 2 (1991–2008)

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