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.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2022 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. Samoragreen1 sentence2018See State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031 , 6 ¶ 34, 387 P.3d 230 (stating our standard of review for assessing the sufficiency of the 7 evidence). 8 CONCLUSION 9 {11} For the reasons stated in this opinion and in our previous notices, we affirm in 10 part, reverse in part, and remand for the district court to vacate one of Defendant’s 11 convictions for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer for violation of double 12 jeopardy. 13 {12} IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ____________________________________ 15 LINDA M. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waltersgreen2 sentences2014See 19 State v. Walters, 1997-NMCA-013, ¶ 24 , 123 N.M. 88 , 934 P.2d 282 (“When the 2 1 testimony of the witnesses differs as to the facts, it is for the trial court to evaluate the 2 credibility of the evidence and resolve the conflicts.”). 2014See 19 State v. Walters, 1997-NMCA-013, ¶ 24 , 123 N.M. 88 , 934 P.2d 282 (“When the 2 1 testimony of the witnesses differs as to the facts, it is for the trial court to evaluate the 2 credibility of the evidence and resolve the conflicts.”). | 1 | 1 |
Mathis v. Stategreen2 sentences2009See generally Mathis v. State, 112 N.M. 744, 748 , 819 P.2d 1302, 1306 (1991) (recognizing that the “right of cross-examination is a part of the constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against one” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2009See generally Mathis v. State, 112 N.M. 744, 748 , 819 P.2d 1302, 1306 (1991) (recognizing that the “right of cross-examination is a part of the constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against one” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ellenbeckergreen1 sentence1995Id. at 430. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Roswell v. Smith
green
1 sentence2022This Court held that the officers acted in accordance with their duty to prevent a breach of the peace when ordering the defendant to leave, and held that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of obstructing an officer in violation of a Roswell municipal code provision, substantially the same as HMC Section 9.04.080(B). 5 Smith, 2006 -NMCA-040, ¶¶ 6, 8. {20} Unlike Diaz and Smith, where the defendants were subject to a police investigation because of a call for police assistance based on suspected or actual criminal conduct, see Diaz, 1995-NMCA-137 , ¶ 3 and Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, ¶ | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Montoya
green
1 sentence2020We agree. {19} Double jeopardy presents “a question of law, which we review de novo.” State v. Montoya, 2013-NMSC-020, ¶ 22 , 306 P.3d 426 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Shaw
green
1 sentence2017The risk of loss to the defendant and the possibility of police incurring liability for that loss provide valid bases upon which an officer may claim to have custody or control of the item. "[T]he reasonable nexus between the initial arrest and [the] seizure is not found in a theory of probable cause to suspect the existence of contraband or evidence, nor necessarily on an incident to arrest theory, but in the need to safeguard [the] defendant's property from loss and to protect the police from liability and charges of negligence." Id . ¶ 14. {25} Finally, in Shaw , this Court found reasonable | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Roman
green
2 sentences2005He claims that the charges were amended by the court at the close of evidence over his objection in violation of the rule that an amendment to the charge may not “impose an entirely new charge against a defendant after the close of testimony.” State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 688 , 964 P.2d 852 . {18} During cross-examination of the officer by defense counsel on the subject of the field sobriety tests, the court requested counsel for both parties to approach. 2005He claims that the charges were amended by the court at the close of evidence over his objection in violation of the rule that an amendment to the charge may not “impose an entirely new charge against a defendant after the close of testimony.” State v. Roman, 1998-NMCA-132, ¶ 9 , 125 N.M. 688 , 964 P.2d 852 . {18} During cross-examination of the officer by defense counsel on the subject of the field sobriety tests, the court requested counsel for both parties to approach. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
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.