unless error in New Mexico

53 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2010–2026 17 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.

Followed or applied (12)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Tollardogreen nm · 2012 · cited in 47 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2026 2 sentences 2026See 12 State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted 13 evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be 14 harmful.”); State v. Salazar, 2023-NMCA-026 , ¶ 19, 527 P.3d 693 (“An erroneous 15 evidentiary ruling is not grounds for a new trial unless the error was prejudicial rather 16 than harmless.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “[A] non- 17 constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error 18 affected the verdict.” Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 36 (internal quotation marks and 19 citatio 2026See 12 State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted 13 evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be 14 harmful.”); State v. Salazar, 2023-NMCA-026 , ¶ 19, 527 P.3d 693 (“An erroneous 15 evidentiary ruling is not grounds for a new trial unless the error was prejudicial rather 16 than harmless.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “[A] non- 17 constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error 18 affected the verdict.” Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 36 (internal quotation marks and 19 citatio	25	47
State v. Carillogreen nm · 2017 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2018–2022 2 sentences 2022The Error Was Not Harmless {14} It is well understood that “[i]mproperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.” Carrillo, 2017-NMSC-023, ¶ 39 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2018See Carrillo, 2017-NMSC-023, ¶ 39 (“Improperly 19 admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be 11 1 harmful.”(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Astorga, 2015- 2 NMSC-007, ¶ 43, 343 P.3d 1245 (“Absent a constitutional violation, we look to 3 whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.”). 4 B.	2	2
State v. Barrgreen nm · 2009 · cited in 3 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2026 2 sentences 2026As the State does not advance any other theory to support admissibility of this evidence, we conclude Exhibit 86 was erroneously admitted as evidence of Defendant’s character trait in contravention to Rule 11-401(A)(1). {36} Even though we determine that Exhibit 86 was inadmissible character evidence, “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 ; accord State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 (noting that the “harmless error rule . . . require[s] appell 2026As the State does not advance any other theory to support admissibility of this evidence, we conclude Exhibit 86 was erroneously admitted as evidence of Defendant’s character trait in contravention to Rule 11-401(A)(1). {36} Even though we determine that Exhibit 86 was inadmissible character evidence, “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 ; accord State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 48 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 (noting that the “harmless error rule . . . require[s] appell	1	3
State v. Durangreen nmctapp · 2014 · cited in 2 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2022–2024 2 sentences 2024“We review improperly admitted evidence for non[]constitutional harmless error.” State v. Duran, 2015-NMCA-015, ¶ 19 , 343 P.3d 207 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[Non]constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error affected the verdict.” Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 36 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2022“We review improperly admitted evidence for non-constitutional harmless error.” Duran, 2015-NMCA-015, ¶ 19 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	1	2
State v. Whitegreen nmctapp · 1994 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2022–2022 2 sentences 2022See State v. White, 1994-NMCA-084 , ¶ 14, 118 N.M. 225 , 880 P.2d 322 ; Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 (“Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.”). 2022See State v. White, 1994-NMCA-084 , ¶ 14, 118 N.M. 225 , 880 P.2d 322 ; Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 (“Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.”).	1	1
State v. Albericogreen nm · 1993 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See State v. Alberico, 1993- NMSC-047, ¶ 85, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 (“[W]e expressly prohibit direct testimony regarding the credibility or truthfulness of the alleged victim of sexual abuse.”); see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.”); State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶¶ 19-20, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 (holding that improper admission of expert testimony regarding sexual abuse victim’s truthfulness was harmful because credibility was a pivotal issue	1	1
State v. Albericogreen nm · 1993 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019See State v. Alberico, 1993- NMSC-047, ¶ 85, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 (“[W]e expressly prohibit direct testimony regarding the credibility or truthfulness of the alleged victim of sexual abuse.”); see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.”); State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶¶ 19-20, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 (holding that improper admission of expert testimony regarding sexual abuse victim’s truthfulness was harmful because credibility was a pivotal issue	1	1
Scott v. Browngreen nm · 1966 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 2 sentences 2019“We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {7} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see also Scott v. Brown, 1966-NMSC-135 , ¶ 20, 76 N.M. 501 , 416 P.2d 516 (“An appellate court does not correct harmless error.”). 2019“We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {7} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see also Scott v. Brown, 1966-NMSC-135 , ¶ 20, 76 N.M. 501 , 416 P.2d 516 (“An appellate court does not correct harmless error.”).	1	1
State v. Gristgreen idahoctapp · 2012 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 1 sentence 2016See State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶¶ 25-27, 43-44, 57 , 275 P.3d 12 110 (explaining harmless error and stating that “[i]mproperly admitted evidence is not 13 grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful”).	1	1
State v. Gallegosgreen nmctapp · 2005 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See State 11 v. Gallegos, 2005-NMCA-142, ¶ 32 , 138 N.M. 673 , 125 P.3d 652 , aff’d in part, rev’d 12 in part on other grounds, 2007-NMSC-007 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (stating that 13 we apply a harmless error analysis to improperly admitted evidence). 14 {8} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error 15 is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 . 16 Here, Defendant alleges a violation of the rules of evidence; the error alleged is 17 therefore non-constitutional, see State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 2013See State 11 v. Gallegos, 2005-NMCA-142, ¶ 32 , 138 N.M. 673 , 125 P.3d 652 , aff’d in part, rev’d 12 in part on other grounds, 2007-NMSC-007 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (stating that 13 we apply a harmless error analysis to improperly admitted evidence). 14 {8} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error 15 is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 . 16 Here, Defendant alleges a violation of the rules of evidence; the error alleged is 17 therefore non-constitutional, see State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M.	1	1
State v. Gallegosgreen nm · 2007 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See State 11 v. Gallegos, 2005-NMCA-142, ¶ 32 , 138 N.M. 673 , 125 P.3d 652 , aff’d in part, rev’d 12 in part on other grounds, 2007-NMSC-007 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (stating that 13 we apply a harmless error analysis to improperly admitted evidence). 14 {8} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error 15 is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 . 16 Here, Defendant alleges a violation of the rules of evidence; the error alleged is 17 therefore non-constitutional, see State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M. 2013See State 11 v. Gallegos, 2005-NMCA-142, ¶ 32 , 138 N.M. 673 , 125 P.3d 652 , aff’d in part, rev’d 12 in part on other grounds, 2007-NMSC-007 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 (stating that 13 we apply a harmless error analysis to improperly admitted evidence). 14 {8} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error 15 is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 . 16 Here, Defendant alleges a violation of the rules of evidence; the error alleged is 17 therefore non-constitutional, see State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 53 , 146 N.M.	1	1
State v. Downeygreen nm · 2008 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010See State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 39 , 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 . 2010See State v. Downey, 2008-NMSC-061, ¶ 39 , 145 N.M. 232 , 195 P.3d 1244 .	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Astorga green nmctapp · 2015 2 sentences 2026This requires the Court to evaluate “whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 43 , 343 P.3d 1245 . 2022To determine if the error was harmful, we engage in a harmless error analysis, where “we look to whether there is a reasonable probability that the error affected the verdict.” State v. Astorga, 2015-NMSC-007, ¶ 43 , 343 P.3d 1245 .	2	2022–2026
State v. Salazar green nmctapp · 2022 2 sentences 2026See 12 State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted 13 evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be 14 harmful.”); State v. Salazar, 2023-NMCA-026 , ¶ 19, 527 P.3d 693 (“An erroneous 15 evidentiary ruling is not grounds for a new trial unless the error was prejudicial rather 16 than harmless.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). “[A] non- 17 constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error 18 affected the verdict.” Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 36 (internal quotation marks and 19 citatio 2026Under this standard, even if we assume that the district court erred in admitting the underwear evidence (a matter we expressly do not decide), “[a]n erroneous evidentiary ruling is not grounds for a new trial unless the error was prejudicial rather than harmless.” State v. Salazar, 2023-NMCA- 026, ¶ 19, 527 P.3d 693 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	2	2026–2026
State v. Serna green nm · 2013 2 sentences 2021“Non-constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error affected the verdict.” State v. Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 22 , 305 P.3d 936 (alteration, emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). 2014“We review improperly admitted evidence for non-constitutional harmless error.” State v. Serna, 2013-NMSC-033, ¶ 22 , 305 P.3d 936 .	2	2014–2021
State v. Leyba green nm · 2012 2 sentences 2017“We now analyze whether this evidentiary error was merely 14 harmless, in which case we could overlook it, or prejudicial, requiring reversal.” State 15 v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, ¶ 23 , 289 P.3d 1215 . 16 {40} “[W]e apply the non-constitutional error standard for harmless error” because 17 admitting the cell tower evidence was an evidentiary error. 2017“We now analyze whether this evidentiary error was merely harmless, in which case we could overlook it, or prejudicial, requiring reversal.” State v. Leyba, 2012-NMSC-037, ¶ 23 , 289 P.3d 1215 . {40} “[W]e apply the non-constitutional error standard for harmless error” because admitting the cell tower evidence was an evidentiary error.	2	2017–2017
State v. Thomas green nm · 2016 1 sentence 2026But even assuming that it was, we 10 conclude that any error does not require reversal because it was harmless. 11 {51} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error 12 is determined to be harmful.” State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 33 , 376 P.3d 184 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	1	2026–2026
State v. Rojo green nm · 1998 1 sentence 2019“We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion by its ruling unless we can characterize it as clearly untenable or not justified by reason.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). {7} “Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.” State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 ; see also Scott v. Brown, 1966-NMSC-135 , ¶ 20, 76 N.M. 501 , 416 P.2d 516 (“An appellate court does not correct harmless error.”).	1	2019–2019
State v. Fairweather green nm · 1993 2 sentences 2019See State v. Alberico, 1993- NMSC-047, ¶ 85, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 (“[W]e expressly prohibit direct testimony regarding the credibility or truthfulness of the alleged victim of sexual abuse.”); see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.”); State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶¶ 19-20, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 (holding that improper admission of expert testimony regarding sexual abuse victim’s truthfulness was harmful because credibility was a pivotal issue 2019See State v. Alberico, 1993- NMSC-047, ¶ 85, 116 N.M. 156 , 861 P.2d 192 (“[W]e expressly prohibit direct testimony regarding the credibility or truthfulness of the alleged victim of sexual abuse.”); see also State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, ¶ 25 , 275 P.3d 110 (“Improperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.”); State v. Fairweather, 1993-NMSC-065 , ¶¶ 19-20, 116 N.M. 456 , 863 P.2d 1077 (holding that improper admission of expert testimony regarding sexual abuse victim’s truthfulness was harmful because credibility was a pivotal issue	1	2019–2019
State v. Cabezuela green nm · 2015 1 sentence 2019“Harmless error review necessarily requires a case- by-case analysis, questioning whether a guilty verdict in a particular case is attributable to a particular error.” State v. Cabezuela, 2015-NMSC-016, ¶ 30 , 350 P.3d 1145 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted); see also Tollardo, 2012- NMSC-008, ¶ 43 (listing, among other considerations in the harmless error inquiry, “evidence of a defendant’s guilt separate from the error,” “the importance of the erroneously admitted evidence in the prosecution’s case,” and “whether the error was cumulative” (alterations, internal quot	1	2019–2019
State v. Griscom green nmctapp · 1984 2 sentences 2018See State v. Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 25, 275 P.3d 110 (explaining that even if evidence is improperly admitted, such error "is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful"); State v. Griscom , 1984-NMCA-059 , ¶¶ 16-18, 101 N.M. 377 , 683 P.2d 59 (proceeding to a harmless error analysis without first resolving the primary evidentiary challenge). 2018See State v. Tollardo , 2012-NMSC-008 , ¶ 25, 275 P.3d 110 (explaining that even if evidence is improperly admitted, such error "is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful"); State v. Griscom , 1984-NMCA-059 , ¶¶ 16-18, 101 N.M. 377 , 683 P.2d 59 (proceeding to a harmless error analysis without first resolving the primary evidentiary challenge).	1	2018–2018
State v. Lovett green nm · 2012 1 sentence 2015When evaluating whether a violation of evidentiary rules was harmless, “we ask whether there [was] a reasonable probability that the error affected the jury’s verdict.” Lovett, 2012-NMSC-036, ¶ 52 . {30} The jury did not convict Defendant of any charge that related to the contested testimony of Dr. Ornelas.	1	2015–2015
State v. MacIas green nm · 2009 1 sentence 2012State v. Macias, 2009-NMSC-028, ¶ 37 , 146 N.M. 378 , 210 P.3d 804 ; State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 47 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 .	1	2012–2012
State v. Macias green nm · 2009 2 sentences 2012State v. Macias, 2009-NMSC-028, ¶ 37 , 146 N.M. 378 , 210 P.3d 804 ; State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 47 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 . 2012State v. Macias, 2009-NMSC-028, ¶ 37 , 146 N.M. 378 , 210 P.3d 804 ; State v. Barr, 2009-NMSC-024, ¶ 47 , 146 N.M. 301 , 210 P.3d 198 .	1	2012–2012

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-9-11 (8) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-9-13 (6) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-2-1 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-22-5 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 31-18-15 (5) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-22-1 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-4-1 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-6-1 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 31-18-15.1 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 66-8-102 (4) NM § N.M. Stat. § 30-3-5 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

NM 53 (2010–2026) WV 48 (1949–2026) MN 38 (1986–2026) NC 24 (1903–2026) OK 16 (1925–2007) MI 15 (1994–2026) WA 13 (1973–2022) PA 12 (1969–2014) TX 12 (1911–2020) TN 10 (2002–2021) MO 9 (1898–2009) NY 9 (1976–2016) MA 8 (1973–2021) IL 6 (1989–2025) CA 5 (1955–2022) MD 5 (1975–2007) NJ 4 (2019–2022) WI 4 (1908–2012) CO 3 (2004–2019) LA 3 (1965–1988) MT 3 (1931–2004) KS 3 (1896–1976) GA 3 (1990–2016) CT 3 (1935–1974) NV 2 (1973–2022) IN 2 (1947–1999) OH 2 (1999–2022) FL 2 (1965–1968) OR 2 (1998–2012)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check