two prong test in New Mexico

1980To reach the goal of total disability, the evidence must meet the two prong test set forth in Medina v. Zia Company, 88 N.M. 615 , 544 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App.1975).

1980To reach the goal of total disability, the evidence must meet the two prong test set forth in Medina v. Zia Company, 88 N.M. 615 , 544 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App.1975).

2025He did not offer any “facts 11 and other related circumstances [that] raise an inference that the individual was 12 excluded solely on the basis of his or her membership in a protected group.” Salas, 13 2010-NMSC-028, ¶ 31 .

2025He did not offer any “facts and other related circumstances [that] raise an inference that the individual was excluded solely on the basis of his or her membership in a protected group.” Salas, 2010-NMSC-028, ¶ 31 .

1978Medina v. Zia Company, 88 N.M. 615 , 544 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App.1975); Medina v. Wicked Wick Candle Co., 91 N.M. 522 , 577 P.2d 420 (Ct.App.1977).

1978Medina v. Zia Company, 88 N.M. 615 , 544 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App.1975); Medina v. Wicked Wick Candle Co., 91 N.M. 522 , 577 P.2d 420 (Ct.App.1977).

2025Defendant responded that the State should have developed these issues during voir dire, which prompted the district court to ask, “alright, but what about your racial 6Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986). challenge?” Defense counsel stated, “I don’t think that the State has provided a sufficient answer to overcome the Batson challenge.” The district court denied the challenge without comment. {76} Defendant did not make a prima facie showing of racial discrimination because he only asserted the first part of the two prong test: that is, he only asserted Juror 22 was Black, thus a member of

2022Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {6} Defendant continues to claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. [MIO 8] “To evaluate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two- prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687 . . . (1984).” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M.719, 204 P.3d 44 .

2022Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {6} Defendant continues to claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. [MIO 8] “To evaluate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two- prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687 . . . (1984).” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M.719, 204 P.3d 44 .

2022Ineffective Assistance of Counsel {6} Defendant continues to claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. [MIO 8] “To evaluate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we apply the two- prong test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 687 . . . (1984).” State v. Dylan J., 2009-NMCA-027, ¶ 36 , 145 N.M.719, 204 P.3d 44 .

2011Framework of Analysis {9} Before addressing the State’s arguments, we consider the applicability of the two- prong analysis of privacy expectations set forth in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring), which considers first whether the defendant has an actual or subjective expectation of privacy and, second, “whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.” Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 11 .

2011As this Court noted in Granville, since the decision in Greenwood, “other courts began to utilize the Katz test in relation to garbage searches.” Granville, 2006-NMCA-098, ¶ 20 .

1974A two prong test for judging the sufficiency of an unidentified informant’s tip was set out by the Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), as follows: “Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 , the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from whic

1974A two prong test for judging the sufficiency of an unidentified informant’s tip was set out by the Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), as follows: “Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 , the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from whic

1974A two prong test for judging the sufficiency of an unidentified informant’s tip was set out by the Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), as follows: “Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 , the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from whic

1974A two prong test for judging the sufficiency of an unidentified informant’s tip was set out by the Court in Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 , 84 S.Ct. 1509 , 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), as follows: “Although an affidavit may be based on hearsay information and need not reflect the direct personal observations of the affiant, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257 , 80 S.Ct. 725 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 , the magistrate must be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant concluded that the narcotics were where he claimed they were, and some of the underlying circumstances from whic