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.
7 New Mexico opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2023 3 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. Clemontsgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Clemonts, 2006-NMCA-031, ¶ 10 , 139 N.M. 147 , 130 P.3d 208 (raising sufficiency of the evidence sua sponte because “the [s]tate’s failure to come forward with substantial evidence of the crime charged implicates fundamental error and the fundamental rights of [the d]efendant”). {2} Because the jury below also found Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of criminal damage to property, we reverse Defendant’s convictions for criminal damage to property over $1000 and remand the case for entry of judgment of conviction and resentencing for criminal damage of property withou 2023See State v. Clemonts, 2006-NMCA-031, ¶ 10 , 139 N.M. 147 , 130 P.3d 208 (raising sufficiency of the evidence sua sponte because “the [s]tate’s failure to come forward with substantial evidence of the crime charged implicates fundamental error and the fundamental rights of [the d]efendant”). {2} Because the jury below also found Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of criminal damage to property, we reverse Defendant’s convictions for criminal damage to property over $1000 and remand the case for entry of judgment of conviction and resentencing for criminal damage of property withou | 5 | 5 |
State v. Hayniegreen2 sentences2023See State v. Clemonts, 2006- 19 NMCA-031, ¶ 10, 139 N.M. 147 , 130 P.3d 208 (raising sufficiency of the evidence 20 sua sponte because “the [s]tate’s failure to come forward with substantial evidence 2 1 of the crime charged implicates fundamental error and the fundamental rights of [the 2 d]efendant”). 3 {3} Because the jury below also found Defendant guilty of the lesser included 4 offense of criminal damage to property, we reverse Defendant’s convictions for 5 criminal damage to property over $1000 and remand the case for entry of judgment 6 of conviction and resentencing for criminal damag 2023See State v. Clemonts, 2006- 19 NMCA-031, ¶ 10, 139 N.M. 147 , 130 P.3d 208 (raising sufficiency of the evidence 20 sua sponte because “the [s]tate’s failure to come forward with substantial evidence 2 1 of the crime charged implicates fundamental error and the fundamental rights of [the 2 d]efendant”). 3 {3} Because the jury below also found Defendant guilty of the lesser included 4 offense of criminal damage to property, we reverse Defendant’s convictions for 5 criminal damage to property over $1000 and remand the case for entry of judgment 6 of conviction and resentencing for criminal damag | 1 | 3 |
State v. Barbergreen2 sentences2019“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. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 14 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2019“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. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 14 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 1 | 2 |
In Re Gabriel M.green2 sentences2006State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075 , ¶ 29, 129 N.M. 424 , 9 P.3d 668 . “[W]e have held that the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction may be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 362 , 981 P.2d 295 ; accord In re Gabriel M., 2002-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 9, 27 , 132 N.M. 124 , 45 P.3d 64 . 2006State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075 , ¶ 29, 129 N.M. 424 , 9 P.3d 668 . “[W]e have held that the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction may be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 362 , 981 P.2d 295 ; accord In re Gabriel M., 2002-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 9, 27 , 132 N.M. 124 , 45 P.3d 64 . | 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. Vallejos
green
2 sentences2006State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075 , ¶ 29, 129 N.M. 424 , 9 P.3d 668 . “[W]e have held that the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction may be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 362 , 981 P.2d 295 ; accord In re Gabriel M., 2002-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 9, 27 , 132 N.M. 124 , 45 P.3d 64 . 2006State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075 , ¶ 29, 129 N.M. 424 , 9 P.3d 668 . “[W]e have held that the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction may be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 362 , 981 P.2d 295 ; accord In re Gabriel M., 2002-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 9, 27 , 132 N.M. 124 , 45 P.3d 64 . | 2 | 2003–2006 |
State v. Stein
green
2 sentences2006State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075 , ¶ 29, 129 N.M. 424 , 9 P.3d 668 . “[W]e have held that the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction may be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 362 , 981 P.2d 295 ; accord In re Gabriel M., 2002-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 9, 27 , 132 N.M. 124 , 45 P.3d 64 . 2006State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075 , ¶ 29, 129 N.M. 424 , 9 P.3d 668 . “[W]e have held that the question of sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction may be raised for the first time on appeal.” State v. Stein, 1999-NMCA-065, ¶ 9 , 127 N.M. 362 , 981 P.2d 295 ; accord In re Gabriel M., 2002-NMCA-047, ¶¶ 9, 27 , 132 N.M. 124 , 45 P.3d 64 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
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.