7 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Romero v. Dairyland Insurancegreen2 sentences1997See Romero, 111 N.M. at 156-57 , 803 P.2d at 245-46 . 1997See Romero, 111 N.M. at 156-57 , 803 P.2d at 245-46 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2019See Davis, 2013-NMSC-028, ¶ 14 (noting that the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant’s will has been overborne). 2019The third tier of our analysis “is an acknowledgment of our presumption against waiving constitutional rights, [thus] we focus on the first two prongs.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
People of the Territory of Guam v. Samuel C. Snaergreen1 sentence2018See Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 ("[The United States Supreme] Court has never indicated that the 'rigidity' of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant."); State v. Briggs , 1970-NMCA-062 , ¶ 4, 81 N.M. 581 , 469 P.2d 730 ("The warnings required by Miranda ... deal with substance, not form."); see also People of Territory of Guam v. Snaer , 758 F.2d 1341 , 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) ("If a defendant has been told the substance of his constitutional rights, it is not fatal if irrelevant words or words with no independent substance are omitte | 1 | 1 |
California v. Prysockgreen2 sentences2018See Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 ("[The United States Supreme] Court has never indicated that the 'rigidity' of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant."); State v. Briggs , 1970-NMCA-062 , ¶ 4, 81 N.M. 581 , 469 P.2d 730 ("The warnings required by Miranda ... deal with substance, not form."); see also People of Territory of Guam v. Snaer , 758 F.2d 1341 , 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) ("If a defendant has been told the substance of his constitutional rights, it is not fatal if irrelevant words or words with no independent substance are omitte 2018See Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 ("[The United States Supreme] Court has never indicated that the 'rigidity' of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant."); State v. Briggs , 1970-NMCA-062 , ¶ 4, 81 N.M. 581 , 469 P.2d 730 ("The warnings required by Miranda ... deal with substance, not form."); see also People of Territory of Guam v. Snaer , 758 F.2d 1341 , 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) ("If a defendant has been told the substance of his constitutional rights, it is not fatal if irrelevant words or words with no independent substance are omitte | 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. Fellhauer
green
1 sentence2021However, later that same day, after reviewing the recording of the detention hearing (the detention hearing was held by a different judge), the district court removed the restriction on recreational activities and reinstated the original, more permissive conditions of release. 17I note that in analyzing the second Fellhauer prong, the crucial inquiry is whether a defendant is in “official confinement” and consequently, subject to prosecution for escape or if a defendant is not confined and only subject to a violation of conditions of release. 1997-NMCA-064, ¶¶ 16-20 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Willie Salt Coyote v. United States
green
1 sentence2018"The crucial test is whether the words in the context used, considering the age, background and intelligence of the individual being interrogated, impart a clear, understandable warning of all of his rights." Coyote v. United States , 380 F.2d 305 , 308 (10th Cir. 1967). "[I]t is for the court to objectively determine whether in the circumstances of the case the words used were sufficient to convey the required warning." Id . {15} In making this determination, the form of a Miranda warning is of little consequence as we look to see if the substance of what is required by Miranda is communicate | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Briggs
green
2 sentences2018See Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 ("[The United States Supreme] Court has never indicated that the 'rigidity' of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant."); State v. Briggs , 1970-NMCA-062 , ¶ 4, 81 N.M. 581 , 469 P.2d 730 ("The warnings required by Miranda ... deal with substance, not form."); see also People of Territory of Guam v. Snaer , 758 F.2d 1341 , 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) ("If a defendant has been told the substance of his constitutional rights, it is not fatal if irrelevant words or words with no independent substance are omitte 2018See Prysock , 453 U.S. at 359 , 101 S.Ct. 2806 ("[The United States Supreme] Court has never indicated that the 'rigidity' of Miranda extends to the precise formulation of the warnings given a criminal defendant."); State v. Briggs , 1970-NMCA-062 , ¶ 4, 81 N.M. 581 , 469 P.2d 730 ("The warnings required by Miranda ... deal with substance, not form."); see also People of Territory of Guam v. Snaer , 758 F.2d 1341 , 1343 (9th Cir. 1985) ("If a defendant has been told the substance of his constitutional rights, it is not fatal if irrelevant words or words with no independent substance are omitte | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Ferrill
green
2 sentences2009Alcock’s article stated that In re Will of Ferrill (Thorp v. Cash), 97 N.M. 383 , 640 P.2d 489 (Ct.App.1981) made it "virtually impossible for a testator who is old and infirm to dispose of his property in a manner that a judge or jury might interpret as unnatural or unjust.” Alcock, supra at 401. 2009Alcock’s article stated that In re Will of Ferrill (Thorp v. Cash), 97 N.M. 383 , 640 P.2d 489 (Ct.App.1981) made it "virtually impossible for a testator who is old and infirm to dispose of his property in a manner that a judge or jury might interpret as unnatural or unjust.” Alcock, supra at 401. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Smith v. Lewis
green
2 sentences1985Smith v. Lewis, 13 Cal.3d 349 , 118 Cal.Rptr. 621 , 530 P.2d 589 (1975). 1985Smith v. Lewis, 13 Cal.3d 349 , 118 Cal.Rptr. 621 , 530 P.2d 589 (1975). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.