available defense in New Mexico

2014See State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 39, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 (holding that “second[]degree murder [is] a general[]intent crime for which intoxication is not a defense”). {8} New Mexico cases have held that “an accessory must share the criminal intent of the principal.” State v. Carrasco, 1997-NMSC-047, ¶ 18 , 124 N.M. 64 , 946 P.2d 1075 ; see State v. Ochoa, 1937-NMSC-051 , ¶ 32, 41 N.M. 589 , 72 P.2d 609 (“To aid and abet another in a crime one must share the intent or purpose of the principal” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Montes, 2007-NMCA-083, ¶ 33 ,

2014See State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC-043 , ¶ 39, 122 N.M. 148 , 921 P.2d 1266 (holding that “second[]degree murder [is] a general[]intent crime for which intoxication is not a defense”). {8} New Mexico cases have held that “an accessory must share the criminal intent of the principal.” State v. Carrasco, 1997-NMSC-047, ¶ 18 , 124 N.M. 64 , 946 P.2d 1075 ; see State v. Ochoa, 1937-NMSC-051 , ¶ 32, 41 N.M. 589 , 72 P.2d 609 (“To aid and abet another in a crime one must share the intent or purpose of the principal” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Montes, 2007-NMCA-083, ¶ 33 ,

1967Co., 22 N.M. 169 , 159 P. 860 , and in McGonigle v. Eagle Town-Site Co., 25 N.M. 625 , 187 P. 546 , is stated as follows. “ * * * the admission of incompetent evidence in a trial before the court is not available error, unless it appears that the court in arriving at its determination considered and relied upon the evidence.” In other words, this court will not treat such error as reversible unless there was no other evidence of a substantial nature on which the court could have based its decision.

1967Co., 22 N.M. 169 , 159 P. 860 , and in McGonigle v. Eagle Town-Site Co., 25 N.M. 625 , 187 P. 546 , is stated as follows. “ * * * the admission of incompetent evidence in a trial before the court is not available error, unless it appears that the court in arriving at its determination considered and relied upon the evidence.” In other words, this court will not treat such error as reversible unless there was no other evidence of a substantial nature on which the court could have based its decision.

1967Co., 22 N.M. 169 , 159 P. 860 , and in McGonigle v. Eagle Town-Site Co., 25 N.M. 625 , 187 P. 546 , is stated as follows. “ * * * the admission of incompetent evidence in a trial before the court is not available error, unless it appears that the court in arriving at its determination considered and relied upon the evidence.” In other words, this court will not treat such error as reversible unless there was no other evidence of a substantial nature on which the court could have based its decision.

1967Co., 22 N.M. 169 , 159 P. 860 , and in McGonigle v. Eagle Town-Site Co., 25 N.M. 625 , 187 P. 546 , is stated as follows. “ * * * the admission of incompetent evidence in a trial before the court is not available error, unless it appears that the court in arriving at its determination considered and relied upon the evidence.” In other words, this court will not treat such error as reversible unless there was no other evidence of a substantial nature on which the court could have based its decision.

2022On appeal, Defendant presents five issues: (1) the district court committed reversible error by denying Defendant’s request that the jury be instructed on proximate cause in accordance with UJI 14-134 NMRA; (2) the district court committed plain error by admitting lapel camera footage of a witness’s statement because that witness was not qualified as an expert; (3) his constitutional right to the reasonably effective assistance of counsel was violated because trial counsel failed to request an instruction on the defense of duress to the charge of leaving the scene of an accident when duress wa

2016If not, we review for fundamental error.” State v. Benally, 2001- 16 NMSC-033, ¶ 12, 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 (citation omitted). 17 A. Self-Defense 18 {5} As we noted above, the district court denied Defendant’s proposed instruction 4 1 on the ground that self-defense is not an available defense to criminal damage to 2 property.

2016If not, we review for fundamental error.” State v. Benally, 2001- 16 NMSC-033, ¶ 12, 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 (citation omitted). 17 A. Self-Defense 18 {5} As we noted above, the district court denied Defendant’s proposed instruction 4 1 on the ground that self-defense is not an available defense to criminal damage to 2 property.