penal interest exception (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

penal interest exception in New Mexico

8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2016 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 (8)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Gonzalesgreen
nm · 1999 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2001–2003
2 sentences

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

24
State v. Toneygreen
nm · 2002 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2002–2003
2 sentences

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

22
United States v. John M. Hamilton, A/K/A John Nordquist, and Robert J. Miller, A/K/A Robert J. Alexandergreen
ca7 · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11
United States v. Daniel King Brainard, United States of America v. Halton Q. Bittick, Jr.green
ca4 · 1983 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11
United States v. John Katsougrakis, John Hiotisgreen
ca2 · 1983 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11
United States v. William John Bagleygreen
ca5 · 1976 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11
United States v. Benjamin L. Goinsgreen
ca8 · 1979 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11
Maugeri v. Stategreen
fladistctapp · 1984 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (11)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Torres green
nm · 1998
2 sentences

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

32001–2002
State v. Duarte green
nmctapp · 2004
2 sentences

2007Duarte, 2004-NMCA-117, ¶ 21 .

2007Duarte, 2004-NMCA-117, ¶ 21 .

22007–2007
State v. Martinez-Rodriguez green
nm · 2001
2 sentences

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

2002This Court previously has held that the penal interest exception to the hearsay rule is “a firmly rooted hearsay exception for purposes of satisfying the indicia of reliability requirement of the Confrontation Clause.” Torres, 1998-NMSC-052, ¶ 32 , 126 N.M. 477 , 971 P.2d 1267 ; accord State v. Toney, 2002-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 10-11 , 131 N.M. 558 , 40 P.3d 1002 ; Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-029, ¶27 , 131 N.M. 47 , 33 P.3d 267 ; Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, ¶ 19 , 128 N.M. 44 , 989 P.2d 419 .

22002–2003
Lilly v. Virginia green
scotus · 1999
2 sentences

2002A hearsay statement that satisfies the penal interest exception under Rule 11-804(B)(3) will generally also satisfy the requirement of the Confrontation Clause because the issue of trustworthiness has already been resolved in favor of admissibility. {40} Defendant relies on the plurality opinion in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999).

2002A hearsay statement that satisfies the penal interest exception under Rule 11-804(B)(3) will generally also satisfy the requirement of the Confrontation Clause because the issue of trustworthiness has already been resolved in favor of admissibility. {40} Defendant relies on the plurality opinion in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116 , 119 S.Ct. 1887 , 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999).

22001–2002
State v. Sarracino green
nm · 1998
2 sentences

2016We affirm. 4 {2} Issue 1: Defendant continues to claim that the district court erred in admitting 5 alleged hearsay testimony of a co-defendant. [MIO 6, 8] “We review the admission 6 of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence 7 of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 8 P.2d 72 . 9 {3} Defendant challenges the admission of out-of-court statements made by co- 10 defendant Yolanda Sombrano to investigators. [MIO 8] Specifically, Defendant claims 11 that the district court erred in ruling that these statements w

2016We affirm. 4 {2} Issue 1: Defendant continues to claim that the district court erred in admitting 5 alleged hearsay testimony of a co-defendant. [MIO 6, 8] “We review the admission 6 of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence 7 of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 8 P.2d 72 . 9 {3} Defendant challenges the admission of out-of-court statements made by co- 10 defendant Yolanda Sombrano to investigators. [MIO 8] Specifically, Defendant claims 11 that the district court erred in ruling that these statements w

12016–2016
Sinclair Oil & Gas Co. v. State Industrial Com. neutral
okla · 1932
1 sentence

2016We affirm. 4 {2} Issue 1: Defendant continues to claim that the district court erred in admitting 5 alleged hearsay testimony of a co-defendant. [MIO 6, 8] “We review the admission 6 of evidence under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse in the absence 7 of a clear abuse.” See State v. Sarracino, 1998-NMSC-022, ¶ 20 , 125 N.M. 511 , 964 8 P.2d 72 . 9 {3} Defendant challenges the admission of out-of-court statements made by co- 10 defendant Yolanda Sombrano to investigators. [MIO 8] Specifically, Defendant claims 11 that the district court erred in ruling that these statements w

12016–2016
Massachusetts Laborers District Council v. Abreen Corp. green
scotus · 1984
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11995–1995
Williams v. United States green
scotus · 1979
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11995–1995
Gouger v. United States green
scotus · 1979
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11995–1995
Goins v. United States green
scotus · 1979
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11995–1995
Smith v. Bankhead green
sc · 1921
1 sentence

1995See id.; United States v. Katsougrakis, 715 F.2d 769, 776 (2d Cir.1983) (trustworthiness shown by lack of any “persuasive showing that [the declarant] had an ulterior motive when conversing with his friend”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040 (1984); United States v. Brainard, 690 F.2d 1117, 1125 (4th Cir.1982) (statement to secretary); United States v. Hamilton, 19 F.3d 350, 357 (7th Cir.) (declarant’s statements made to a cell mate with whom he discussed legal strategy at length), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 480 , 130 L.Ed.2d 394 (1994); United States v. Goins, 593 F.2d 88, 91 (8th Cir.) (“A

11995–1995

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-22-5 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-28-2 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-2-1 (3) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-4-1 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

MA 9 (1986–2025) DC 8 (1979–2018) NM 8 (1995–2016) CA 5 (2000–2014) OR 5 (1993–2010) WV 4 (1995–2015) MD 4 (1994–2002) PA 4 (1976–2021) MO 3 (1985–1991) CT 3 (1987–2007) MI 3 (1991–1996) WI 2 (1980–2000) MN 2 (1985–1999) FL 2 (1984–2019)

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