fundamental error applies only under exceptional doctrine in New Mexico

2016One basis for “establishing fundamental error occurs when a 5 mistake in the process makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the 6 apparent guilt of the accused.” State v. Nevarez, 2010-NMCA-049, ¶ 24 , 148 N.M. 7 820, 242 P.3d 387 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2015Fundamental error 15 {3} “The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional 16 circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Nevarez, 2010- 17 NMCA-049, ¶ 24, 148 N.M. 820 , 242 P.3d 387 (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted).

2016One basis for “establishing fundamental error occurs when a 5 mistake in the process makes a conviction fundamentally unfair notwithstanding the 6 apparent guilt of the accused.” State v. Nevarez, 2010-NMCA-049, ¶ 24 , 148 N.M. 7 820, 242 P.3d 387 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2015Fundamental error 15 {3} “The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional 16 circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Nevarez, 2010- 17 NMCA-049, ¶ 24, 148 N.M. 820 , 242 P.3d 387 (internal quotation marks and citation 18 omitted).

2024In this context, we review to determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected “not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 .

2024In this context, we review to determine whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected “not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the juror with an accurate rendition of the relevant law.” State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 .

2024“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 . “[T]he general rule is that fundamental error occurs when the trial court fails to instruct the jury on an essential element.” State v. Lucero, 2017-NMSC-008, ¶ 27 , 389 P.3d 1039 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Lucero, 2017-NMSC-008, ¶ 27 , 389 P.3d 1039 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Under this standard, we determine “whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 13 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Under this standard, we determine “whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction.” State v. Sandoval, 2011-NMSC-022, ¶ 13 , 150 N.M. 224 , 258 P.3d 1016 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024To rise to the level of fundamental error, a prosecutor’s conduct must be “so egregious and ha[ve] such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024To rise to the level of fundamental error, a prosecutor’s conduct must be “so egregious and ha[ve] such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Allen, 2000-NMSC-002, ¶ 95 , 128 N.M. 482 , 994 P.2d 728 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024However, “[o]ur courts have” repeatedly “stated that a missing definition generally cannot result in the sort of fundamental unfairness that undermines the integrity of the judicial system unless, the missing definition is akin to a missing elements instruction.” State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶ 16 , 493 P.3d 434 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). {24} Fundamental error analysis in this context begins with applying the standard for reversible error by determining if a reasonable juror “would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction[s].

2024However, “[o]ur courts have” repeatedly “stated that a missing definition generally cannot result in the sort of fundamental unfairness that undermines the integrity of the judicial system unless, the missing definition is akin to a missing elements instruction.” State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, ¶ 16 , 493 P.3d 434 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). {24} Fundamental error analysis in this context begins with applying the standard for reversible error by determining if a reasonable juror “would have been confused or misdirected by the jury instruction[s].

2021“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Montelongo Esparza, 2020-NMCA-050, ¶ 7 , 475 P.3d 815 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Montelongo Esparza, 2020-NMCA-050, ¶ 7 , 475 P.3d 815 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021It “cannot be invoked to remedy the defendant’s own invited mistakes.” State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 34 , 327 P.3d 1076 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020Failure to Join Did Not Constitute Fundamental Error {24} Defendant argues that even if he was required to raise the issue of joinder below, the State’s failure to join Jackson I and Jackson II constituted fundamental error because it allowed the State to “paint[] two very different versions of what supposedly happened between [Defendant] and [Victim] between April 4, 2015 and April 10, 2015— without ever having to reconcile the inconsistencies . . . [or] commit to one theory of what happened that week[.]” See State v. Turner, 2017-NMCA-047, ¶ 60 , 396 P.3d 184 (“The doctrine of fundamental er

2020Jaramillo v. Meteor Monument, L.L.C., 2012-NMSC-004 , ¶¶ 32–33, 274 P.3d 97 (stating that we apply the doctrine of fundamental error in civil cases “under the most extraordinary and limited circumstances”); State v. Barber, 2004- NMSC-019, ¶¶ 8, 14, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (stating that the “doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice” and “is to be resorted to in criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence appears indisputabl[e], or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to per

2020Jaramillo v. Meteor Monument, L.L.C., 2012-NMSC-004 , ¶¶ 32–33, 274 P.3d 97 (stating that we apply the doctrine of fundamental error in civil cases “under the most extraordinary and limited circumstances”); State v. Barber, 2004- NMSC-019, ¶¶ 8, 14, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (stating that the “doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice” and “is to be resorted to in criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence appears indisputabl[e], or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to per

2020“We will only affirm a case in which the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element when, under the facts adduced at trial, that omitted element was undisputed and indisputable, and no rational jury could have concluded otherwise.” State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 13, 122 N.M. 63 , 920 P.2d 1017 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {8} The hit-and-run statute applicable to leaving the scene of an accident involving death or personal injuries—such as the tragic accident in this case—provides, “The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injur

2020“We will only affirm a case in which the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element when, under the facts adduced at trial, that omitted element was undisputed and indisputable, and no rational jury could have concluded otherwise.” State v. Lopez, 1996-NMSC-036 , ¶ 13, 122 N.M. 63 , 920 P.2d 1017 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {8} The hit-and-run statute applicable to leaving the scene of an accident involving death or personal injuries—such as the tragic accident in this case—provides, “The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injur

2019“For fundamental error to exist, the instruction given must differ materially from the uniform jury instruction, omit essential elements, or be so confusing and incomprehensible that a court cannot be certain that the jury found the essential elements under the facts of the case.” State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 24 , 143 N.M. 792 , 182 P.3d 775 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the

2019“For fundamental error to exist, the instruction given must differ materially from the uniform jury instruction, omit essential elements, or be so confusing and incomprehensible that a court cannot be certain that the jury found the essential elements under the facts of the case.” State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 24 , 143 N.M. 792 , 182 P.3d 775 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “[J]uror confusion or misdirection may stem not only from instructions that are facially contradictory or ambiguous, but from instructions which, through omission or misstatement, fail to provide the

2019See id. ¶ 8 (“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”); State v. Rodriguez, 1970-NMSC-073, ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 503, 469 P.2d 148 (“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be resorted to in criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence appears indisputably, or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.”); State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9, 127 N.M. 362, 981 P.2d 295 (“No error is more fundamental than the conviction of an innocent person, and no rig

2019See id. ¶ 8 (“The doctrine of fundamental error applies only under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a miscarriage of justice.”); State v. Rodriguez, 1970-NMSC-073, ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 503, 469 P.2d 148 (“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be resorted to in criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence appears indisputably, or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand.”); State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9, 127 N.M. 362, 981 P.2d 295 (“No error is more fundamental than the conviction of an innocent person, and no rig

2017Fundamental error “must go to the foundation of the case or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Garcia, 1942-NMSC-030 , ¶ 25, 46 N.M. 302 , 128 P.2d 459 .

2017Fundamental error “must go to the foundation of the case or take from the defendant a right which was essential to his defense and which no court could or ought to permit him to waive.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); State v. Garcia, 1942-NMSC-030 , ¶ 25, 46 N.M. 302 , 128 P.2d 459 .