8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2024 5 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. Jacksongreen2 sentences2024Foulenfont, 1995- 9 NMCA-028, ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 10 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge 11 whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would 12 constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other 13 grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . 2024Foulenfont, 1995-NMCA-028 , ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Radosevichgreen2 sentences2024Foulenfont, 1995- 9 NMCA-028, ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 10 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge 11 whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would 12 constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other 13 grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . 2024Foulenfont, 1995-NMCA-028 , ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Radosevichgreen2 sentences2024Foulenfont, 1995- 9 NMCA-028, ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 10 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge 11 whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would 12 constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other 13 grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . 2024Foulenfont, 1995-NMCA-028 , ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2024Foulenfont, 1995- 9 NMCA-028, ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 10 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge 11 whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would 12 constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other 13 grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . 2024Foulenfont, 1995- 9 NMCA-028, ¶ 6; see also State v. Jackson, 2010-NMSC-032 , ¶ 4 n.1, 148 N.M. 452 , 10 237 P.3d 754 (“Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge 11 whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would 12 constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute.”), overruled on other 13 grounds by State v. Radosevich, 2018-NMSC-028, ¶¶ 2, 34 , 419 P.3d 176 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Samoragreen1 sentence2023See State v. Samora, 2016-NMSC-031, ¶ 11 , 387 P.3d 230 (“[A]ppropriate delay, justified for a valid reason, such as a missing witness, is neutral and does not weigh against the [s]tate.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {7} The period from June 4, 2019 to July 24, 2019, also weighs neutrally because after a pretrial motion hearing, the parties and the court agreed it was too late in the day to begin the jury trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bacagreen2 sentences2023See State v. Baca, 1997- NMSC-059, ¶ 25, 124 N.M. 333 , 950 P.2d 776 . {6} Here, Defendant’s specific claim is that trial counsel should have filed a pretrial motion to challenge the search warrant. [MIO 7] However, Defendant concedes that this was a strategic decision by trial counsel, who apparently thought that filing such a motion would negatively impact his trial strategy. [MIO 8] As noted above, strategic decisions by trial counsel do not amount to a showing of ineffective assistance. 2023See State v. Baca, 1997- NMSC-059, ¶ 25, 124 N.M. 333 , 950 P.2d 776 . {6} Here, Defendant’s specific claim is that trial counsel should have filed a pretrial motion to challenge the search warrant. [MIO 7] However, Defendant concedes that this was a strategic decision by trial counsel, who apparently thought that filing such a motion would negatively impact his trial strategy. [MIO 8] As noted above, strategic decisions by trial counsel do not amount to a showing of ineffective assistance. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2021See generally State v. Barber, 2004- NMSC-019, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (concluding that if the defendant had 4Defendant states that the total invasion time was “anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes[.]” In support, Defendant cites a pretrial motion hearing, at which an officer who interviewed the victims testified that the incident lasted five to ten minutes. 2021See generally State v. Barber, 2004- NMSC-019, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (concluding that if the defendant had 4Defendant states that the total invasion time was “anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes[.]” In support, Defendant cites a pretrial motion hearing, at which an officer who interviewed the victims testified that the incident lasted five to ten minutes. | 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. Foulenfont
green
2 sentences2010Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute. 119 N.M. at 790 , 895 P.2d at 1331 . 2 . 2010Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute. 119 N.M. at 790 , 895 P.2d at 1331 . 2 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Gammill
green
2 sentences2011The State claims that Defendant failed to preserve the joinder issue at the trial court level because Defendant did not invoke a ruling that the “joinder of charges was an abuse of prosecutorial discretion or an act incompatible with the prosecutors’ duty to seek justice.” Therefore the State argues that the only issue on appeal is Defendant’s motion to sever claim. {28} In Gammill, the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant waived his improper joinder claim because he failed to raise the issue at the pretrial motion hearing. 102 N.M. at 654 , 699 P.2d at 127 . 2011The State claims that Defendant failed to preserve the joinder issue at the trial court level because Defendant did not invoke a ruling that the “joinder of charges was an abuse of prosecutorial discretion or an act incompatible with the prosecutors’ duty to seek justice.” Therefore the State argues that the only issue on appeal is Defendant’s motion to sever claim. {28} In Gammill, the Court of Appeals concluded that the defendant waived his improper joinder claim because he failed to raise the issue at the pretrial motion hearing. 102 N.M. at 654 , 699 P.2d at 127 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Jacobs
green
2 sentences2011In Jacobs, this Court held that the defendant failed to preserve an improper joinder claim at trial because he argued only that the jury would misuse the evidence, not that joinder was improper under Rule 5-203(A). 2000-NMSC-026 , ¶ 12, 129 N.M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 . 2011In Jacobs, this Court held that the defendant failed to preserve an improper joinder claim at trial because he argued only that the jury would misuse the evidence, not that joinder was improper under Rule 5-203(A). 2000-NMSC-026 , ¶ 12, 129 N.M. 448 , 10 P.3d 127 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Jackson
green
2 sentences2010Accepting the plea for violation of Section 30-22-5(B)(4), the court sentenced Defendant to 18 months of supervised probation. {6} On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing with Defendant that the 1 Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute. 119 N.M. at 790 , 895 P.2d at 1331 . 2 tampering statute “reaches only conduct which interferes with the investigation or prosecution of a crime.” State v. Jackson, 2009-NMCA-06 2010Accepting the plea for violation of Section 30-22-5(B)(4), the court sentenced Defendant to 18 months of supervised probation. {6} On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, agreeing with Defendant that the 1 Foulenfont permits the accused to file a pretrial motion to challenge whether the facts alleged in the information or indictment, if proven, would constitute a crime as set forth in the applicable criminal statute. 119 N.M. at 790 , 895 P.2d at 1331 . 2 tampering statute “reaches only conduct which interferes with the investigation or prosecution of a crime.” State v. Jackson, 2009-NMCA-06 | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.