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 1 courts 1982–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crawford v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2012And[,] of course, every expert’s going to be looking at reports and things of that nature to render opinions.” In making its ruling, the district court referred directly to its belief that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004), did not address the “expert witness section oftheNew Mexico [R]ules of [E]vidence [with regard to] an expert testifying from a prior report using [that] as a basis for his opinion.” We therefore review the district court’s admission of the report as pursuant to Rule 11-703 NMRA and consider whether the admission of the report was a violation of Defendant’s righ 2011And[,] of course, every expert’s going to be looking at reports and things of that nature to render opinions.” In making its ruling, the district court referred directly to its belief that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51 (2004), did not address the “expert witness section of the New Mexico [R]ules of [E]vidence [with regard to] an expert testifying from a prior report using [that] as a basis for his opinion.” We therefore review the district court’s admission of the report as pursuant to Rule 11-703 NMRA and consider whether the admission of the report was a violation of Defendant’s ri | 2 | 3 |
State v. Lovatogreen2 sentences2010Accordingly, we do not review the specific question of the 16 admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he found a bottle containing whiskey. 17 Defendant’s assertion in the docketing statement that the State “offered no 18 proof that he violated his probation” [DS 6] potentially raises an issue of whether the 19 evidence was sufficient. “[T]his Court may review the sufficiency of the evidence to 20 support a conviction, even though raised for the first time on appeal, because it 2 The docketing statement identifies the bottle as Jim Beam, but the memorandum in opposition and the report of 2010Accordingly, we do not review the specific question of the 16 admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he found a bottle containing whiskey. 17 Defendant’s assertion in the docketing statement that the State “offered no 18 proof that he violated his probation” [DS 6] potentially raises an issue of whether the 19 evidence was sufficient. “[T]his Court may review the sufficiency of the evidence to 20 support a conviction, even though raised for the first time on appeal, because it 2 The docketing statement identifies the bottle as Jim Beam, but the memorandum in opposition and the report of | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rondeaugreen2 sentences2009In State v. Rondeau, 89 N.M. 408, 418 , 553 P.2d 688, 698 (1976), our Supreme Court held that no Brady violation exists where evidence is found during trial as opposed to after trial. 2009In State v. Rondeau, 89 N.M. 408, 418 , 553 P.2d 688, 698 (1976), our Supreme Court held that no Brady violation exists where evidence is found during trial as opposed to after trial. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hutchisongreen1 sentence2008Id. at 1124-25. {16} Our Legislature struck a balance between the protection of minors and persons charged with violations of Section 30-6-1, 30-9-11 or 30-9-13 by enacting Section 30-1-9.1. | 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. Mendez
green
2 sentences2012A. Confrontation Clause Requirements {8} “The Confrontation Clause guarantees the accused in a criminal trial the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, regardless of how trustworthy the out-of-court statement may appear to be.” State v. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 , 148 N.M. 761 , 242 P.3d 328 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2012A. Confrontation Clause Requirements {8} “The Confrontation Clause guarantees the accused in a criminal trial the right to be confronted with the witnesses against him, regardless of how trustworthy the out-of-court statement may appear to be.” State v. Mendez, 2010-NMSC-044, ¶ 28 , 148 N.M. 761 , 242 P.3d 328 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2011–2012 |
Board of Education v. New Mexico State Board of Education
green
2 sentences1987In his well-reasoned dissent in Jennings, Chief Judge Donnelly noted that: Although the State Board under § 22-10-20, supra, is not bound by the findings, conclusions or recommendations of its hearing examiner after a de novo hearing, Board of Education v. New Mexico State Bd. of Ed.[,] 88 N.M. 10 , 536 P.2d 274 (Ct.App.1975), the Board’s action in arriving at a contrary holding, without itself independently reviewing all of the evidence at the de novo hearing, and based upon a report of the hearing officer which it rejected, is contrary to the requirements of a fair hearing. 1987In his well-reasoned dissent in Jennings, Chief Judge Donnelly noted that: Although the State Board under § 22-10-20, supra, is not bound by the findings, conclusions or recommendations of its hearing examiner after a de novo hearing, Board of Education v. New Mexico State Bd. of Ed.[,] 88 N.M. 10 , 536 P.2d 274 (Ct.App.1975), the Board’s action in arriving at a contrary holding, without itself independently reviewing all of the evidence at the de novo hearing, and based upon a report of the hearing officer which it rejected, is contrary to the requirements of a fair hearing. | 2 | 1982–1987 |
State v. Vallejos
green
2 sentences2010Accordingly, we do not review the specific question of the 16 admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he found a bottle containing whiskey. 17 Defendant’s assertion in the docketing statement that the State “offered no 18 proof that he violated his probation” [DS 6] potentially raises an issue of whether the 19 evidence was sufficient. “[T]his Court may review the sufficiency of the evidence to 20 support a conviction, even though raised for the first time on appeal, because it 2 The docketing statement identifies the bottle as Jim Beam, but the memorandum in opposition and the report of 2010Accordingly, we do not review the specific question of the 16 admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he found a bottle containing whiskey. 17 Defendant’s assertion in the docketing statement that the State “offered no 18 proof that he violated his probation” [DS 6] potentially raises an issue of whether the 19 evidence was sufficient. “[T]his Court may review the sufficiency of the evidence to 20 support a conviction, even though raised for the first time on appeal, because it 2 The docketing statement identifies the bottle as Jim Beam, but the memorandum in opposition and the report of | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Galaz
green
2 sentences2010Accordingly, we do not review the specific question of the 16 admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he found a bottle containing whiskey. 17 Defendant’s assertion in the docketing statement that the State “offered no 18 proof that he violated his probation” [DS 6] potentially raises an issue of whether the 19 evidence was sufficient. “[T]his Court may review the sufficiency of the evidence to 20 support a conviction, even though raised for the first time on appeal, because it 2 The docketing statement identifies the bottle as Jim Beam, but the memorandum in opposition and the report of 2010Accordingly, we do not review the specific question of the 16 admissibility of the officer’s testimony that he found a bottle containing whiskey. 17 Defendant’s assertion in the docketing statement that the State “offered no 18 proof that he violated his probation” [DS 6] potentially raises an issue of whether the 19 evidence was sufficient. “[T]his Court may review the sufficiency of the evidence to 20 support a conviction, even though raised for the first time on appeal, because it 2 The docketing statement identifies the bottle as Jim Beam, but the memorandum in opposition and the report of | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Ohio v. Roberts
red
1 sentence2009We further held that the defendant’s inability to 17 cross-examine the forensic chemist who prepared the report did not violate the 18 defendant’s confrontation rights under Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), 10 1 abrogated on other grounds by Crawford, 541 U.S. 36 , because the hearsay testimony 2 was admitted under firmly-rooted exceptions to the hearsay rule—the business records 3 and public records exceptions. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.