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 2 courts 1996–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Rosairegreen2 sentences2021A. The Jury Instruction Defendant Challenges Remains Part of the Record That We Must Review for Sufficient Evidence of Causation {22} “[O]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction.” State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 . 2021A. The Jury Instruction Defendant Challenges Remains Part of the Record That We Must Review for Sufficient Evidence of Causation {22} “[O]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction.” State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 . | 3 | 6 |
United States of America, Cross-Appellant v. Marsden W. Miller, Jr., and William C. Huls, Cross-Appelleesgreen2 sentences2000See United States v. Miller, 952 F.2d 866, 874 (5th Cir.1992) ("Although not mandated by the double jeopardy clause, it is accordingly clearly the better practice for the appellate court on an initial appeal to dispose of any claim properly presented to it that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to warrant the thus challenged conviction."); see also State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (stating, "our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction."). 2000See United States v. Miller, 952 F.2d 866, 874 (5th Cir.1992) (“Although not mandated by the double jeopardy clause, it is accordingly clearly the better practice for the appellate court on an initial appeal to dispose of any claim properly presented to it that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to warrant the thus challenged conviction.”); see also State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (stating, “our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction.”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rosairegreen2 sentences2019“By addressing [a defendant’s] claim of insufficient evidence and determining that retrial is permissible, we ensure that no double jeopardy concerns are implicated.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 31; see also State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (“[O]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction[.]”), aff’d, 1997-NMSC-034 , 123 N.M. 701 , 945 P.2d 66 . {11} “To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the verdict, we must decide whether substantial evidence 2019“By addressing [a defendant’s] claim of insufficient evidence and determining that retrial is permissible, we ensure that no double jeopardy concerns are implicated.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 31; see also State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (“[O]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction[.]”), aff’d, 1997-NMSC-034 , 123 N.M. 701 , 945 P.2d 66 . {11} “To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the verdict, we must decide whether substantial evidence | 1 | 3 |
State v. Brietaggreen2 sentences2019“By addressing [a defendant’s] claim of insufficient evidence and determining that retrial is permissible, we ensure that no double jeopardy concerns are implicated.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 31; see also State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (“[O]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction[.]”), aff’d, 1997-NMSC-034 , 123 N.M. 701 , 945 P.2d 66 . {11} “To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the verdict, we must decide whether substantial evidence 2019“By addressing [a defendant’s] claim of insufficient evidence and determining that retrial is permissible, we ensure that no double jeopardy concerns are implicated.” Mascareñas, 2000-NMSC-017 , ¶ 31; see also State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (“[O]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction[.]”), aff’d, 1997-NMSC-034 , 123 N.M. 701 , 945 P.2d 66 . {11} “To determine whether the evidence presented was sufficient to sustain the verdict, we must decide whether substantial evidence | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cabezuelagreen1 sentence2014See Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041, ¶ 40 (“We . . . address Defendant’s sufficiency of the evidence claim to determine whether a retrial would implicate double jeopardy protections.”); State v. Rosaire, 1996-NMCA-115, ¶ 20 , 123 N.M. 250 , 939 P.2d 597 (“[0]ur review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction.” (citation omitted)), aff'd, 1997-NMSC-034 , 127 N.M. 701 , 945 P.2d 66 . {42} When reviewing a verdict for sufficient evidence, we employ a deferential standard in favor of the jury’s verdict. | 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. Dowling
green
2 sentences2014State v. Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 20 , 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 . 2014State v. Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, ¶ 20 , 150 N.M. 110 , 257 P.3d 930 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Lockhart v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1996However, our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction, cf Lock-hart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38-39 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 289-90 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) (retrial after reversal based on trial error not barred by Double Jeopardy Clause unless, in addition to defect in trial proceedings, the defendant is entitled to reversal based on insufficient evidence). 1996However, our review of the sufficiency of the evidence is analytically independent from the issue of the defect in the jury instruction, cf Lock-hart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38-39 , 109 S.Ct. 285, 289-90 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988) (retrial after reversal based on trial error not barred by Double Jeopardy Clause unless, in addition to defect in trial proceedings, the defendant is entitled to reversal based on insufficient evidence). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.
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.