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 1 courts 1999–2026 1 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. Torresgreen2 sentences2026See Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (“As with any fundamental error 2 inquiry, we will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock 3 the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the 4 fundamental integrity of the judicial process.”); State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070 , 5 ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (“The plain error doctrine is not as strict as the 6 doctrine of fundamental error in its application” but “[n]evertheless, because the 7 plain error rule is an exception to the general rule that parties must raise timely 8 objection to improprie 2026See Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (“As with any fundamental error 2 inquiry, we will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock 3 the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the 4 fundamental integrity of the judicial process.”); State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070 , 5 ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (“The plain error doctrine is not as strict as the 6 doctrine of fundamental error in its application” but “[n]evertheless, because the 7 plain error rule is an exception to the general rule that parties must raise timely 8 objection to improprie | 5 | 5 |
State v. Torresgreen2 sentences2016But Lucero states that the standard of review for plain error is simply whether the error “affect[s] substantial rights[,]” a standard which the court itself characterized as “less stringent” than the standard of review for constitutional fundamental error. 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 9 , 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (“The plain error doctrine is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application.”). 2007In Paiz, the issue was plain error, not fundamental error, which is reviewed under a different standard. 1999-NMCA-104, ¶ 25 , 127 N.M. 776 , 987 P.2d 1163 ; see also State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070, ¶ 9 , 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (“The plain error doctrine is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application.”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Lucerogreen2 sentences2019Thus, “we need not determine that there has been a miscarriage of justice or a conviction in which the defendant’s guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of the court to allow it to stand.” State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 13, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 . 2019Thus, “we need not determine that there has been a miscarriage of justice or a conviction in which the defendant’s guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience of the court to allow it to stand.” State v. Lucero, 1993-NMSC-064 , ¶ 13, 116 N.M. 450 , 863 P.2d 1071 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sosagreen1 sentence2026See Sosa, 2009-NMSC-056, ¶ 35 (“As with any fundamental error 2 inquiry, we will upset a jury verdict only (1) when guilt is so doubtful as to shock 3 the conscience, or (2) when there has been an error in the process implicating the 4 fundamental integrity of the judicial process.”); State v. Torres, 2005-NMCA-070 , 5 ¶ 9, 137 N.M. 607 , 113 P.3d 877 (“The plain error doctrine is not as strict as the 6 doctrine of fundamental error in its application” but “[n]evertheless, because the 7 plain error rule is an exception to the general rule that parties must raise timely 8 objection to improprie | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Olanored2 sentences1999See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). {28} In ascertaining whether a plain error affects substantial rights, the plain error rule is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application. 1999See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). {28} In ascertaining whether a plain error affects substantial rights, the plain error rule is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Paiz
green
2 sentences2019“The plain error rule is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application.” State v. Paiz, 1999-NMCA-104, ¶ 28 , 127 N.M. 776 , 987 P.2d 1163 . 2019“The plain error rule is not as strict as the doctrine of fundamental error in its application.” State v. Paiz, 1999-NMCA-104, ¶ 28 , 127 N.M. 776 , 987 P.2d 1163 . | 5 | 2005–2019 |
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.