8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2013 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. Barrgreen2 sentences2013Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 (“[Wjhere a defendant has established a violation of ... court rules, non-constitutional error review is appropriate.”). “[N]on-constitutional error is reversible only if the reviewing court is able to say, in the context of the specific evidence at trial, that it is reasonably probable that the jury’s verdict would have been different but for the error.” Id. ¶ 54. 2013Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 (“[W]here a defendant has established a violation of . . . court rules, non-constitutional error review is appropriate.”). “[N]on-constitutional error is reversible only if the reviewing court is able to say, in the context of the specific evidence at trial, that it is reasonably probable that the jury’s verdict would have been different but for the error.” Id. ¶ 54. | 4 | 8 |
State v. Tollardogreen2 sentences2012Harmless Error {19} “[W]here a defendant has established a violation of statutory law or court rules, non-constitutional error review is appropriate.” State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 37 , 275 P.3d 110 . 2012Harmless Error {19} “[W]here a defendant has established a violation of statutory law or court rules, non-constitutional error review is appropriate.” State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 , overruled on other grounds by State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 37 , 275 P.3d 110 . | 2 | 3 |
State v. Wilsongreen2 sentences2012See State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 6 (“[W]here a defendant has established a violation of statutory law or court rules, non- 7 constitutional error review is appropriate.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. 8 Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC- 9 001, ¶¶ 30, 39, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (applying non-constitutional harmless 10 error analysis after assuming the district court improperly admitted opinion testimony 11 in violation of Rule 11-702 NMRA), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012- 12 NMSC-008. 2012See State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 6 (“[W]here a defendant has established a violation of statutory law or court rules, non- 7 constitutional error review is appropriate.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. 8 Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC- 9 001, ¶¶ 30, 39, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (applying non-constitutional harmless 10 error analysis after assuming the district court improperly admitted opinion testimony 11 in violation of Rule 11-702 NMRA), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012- 12 NMSC-008. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mooregreen2 sentences2012See State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 6 (“[W]here a defendant has established a violation of statutory law or court rules, non- 7 constitutional error review is appropriate.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. 8 Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC- 9 001, ¶¶ 30, 39, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (applying non-constitutional harmless 10 error analysis after assuming the district court improperly admitted opinion testimony 11 in violation of Rule 11-702 NMRA), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012- 12 NMSC-008. 2012See State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 6 (“[W]here a defendant has established a violation of statutory law or court rules, non- 7 constitutional error review is appropriate.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. 8 Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see, e.g., State v. Wilson, 2011-NMSC- 9 001, ¶¶ 30, 39, 149 N.M. 273 , 248 P.3d 315 (applying non-constitutional harmless 10 error analysis after assuming the district court improperly admitted opinion testimony 11 in violation of Rule 11-702 NMRA), overruled on other grounds by Tollardo, 2012- 12 NMSC-008. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Sullivan v. Louisiana
green
2 sentences2009However, “ ‘[t]he inquiry ... is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” Id. ¶ 57 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)). 2009However, “ ‘[t]he inquiry ... is not whether, in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the guilty verdict actually rendered in this trial was surely unattributable to the error.’ ” Id. ¶ 57 (quoting Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279 , 113 S.Ct. 2078 , 124 L.Ed.2d 182 (1993)). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.