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.
6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2003–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Dostgreen2 sentences2025This Court evaluates the evidence of lewdness according to the six nonexclusive “Dost factors.” Id. ¶ 20 (citing United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. 2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Amiraultgreen2 sentences2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ 2009The inquiry will always be case-specific.” United States v. Amirault, 173 F.3d 28, 32 (1st Cir.1999). {21} We take this opportunity to clarify the scope of the first and sixth Dost factors in relation to the second and third essential elements of Section 30-6A-2(A)(5), which require the challenged image: (2) to “focus on the genitals or pubic area”; (3) “for the purpose of sexual stimulation.” Both the first Dost factor and the statute concentrate on whether the image focuses on the genital or pubic area of the child and, therefore, we conclude that they are duplicative of one another. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ 2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Edwin E. Wiegandgreen2 sentences2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ 2003See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Calif.1986), aff'd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ 2011Compare The American Heritage Dictionary 1930 (4th ed. 2000) (A voyeur is “a person who derives sexual gratification from observing the naked bodies or sexual acts of others, especially from a secret vantage point.”), with Myers I, 2008-NMCA-047, ¶12 , 143 N.M. 710 , 181 P.3d 702 , and Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶ 9 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (citing Dost, 636 F.Supp. at 832 , which offers factors for determining if an image is lewd, including a focus on the pubic area, a sexually suggestive setting, unnatural poses, partial clothing, and designed “to elicit a sexual response in the viewer”) | 2 | 2 |
State v. Myersgreen2 sentences2025This Court evaluates the evidence of lewdness according to the six nonexclusive “Dost factors.” Id. ¶ 20 (citing United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828, 832 (S.D. 2025Subject’s position facing toward the mirror, the nudity, and the private setting would permit a reasonable jury to determine that the pubic area is the “focal point of the images.” See Myers, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶ 23 . {9} The remaining Dost factors also support a conclusion that the images were lewd. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Pinkoskigreen2 sentences2003See People v. Pinkoski, 188 Misc.2d 588 , 729 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588 (County Ct.2001). 2003See People v. Pinkoski, 188 Misc.2d 588 , 729 N.Y.S.2d 585, 588 (County Ct.2001). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Robert David Villardgreen2 sentences2003See Villard, 885 F.2d at 125 (noting that rather than being a separate substantive inquiry, the sixth Dost factor is a means to determine if any of the other factors are present); see also State v. Saulsbury, 243 Neb. 227 , 498 N.W.2d 338, 344 (1993). 2003See Villard, 885 F.2d at 125 (noting that rather than being a separate substantive inquiry, the sixth Dost factor is a means to determine if any of the other factors are present); see also State v. Saulsbury, 243 Neb. 227 , 498 N.W.2d 338, 344 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Saulsburygreen2 sentences2003See Villard, 885 F.2d at 125 (noting that rather than being a separate substantive inquiry, the sixth Dost factor is a means to determine if any of the other factors are present); see also State v. Saulsbury, 243 Neb. 227 , 498 N.W.2d 338, 344 (1993). 2003See Villard, 885 F.2d at 125 (noting that rather than being a separate substantive inquiry, the sixth Dost factor is a means to determine if any of the other factors are present); see also State v. Saulsbury, 243 Neb. 227 , 498 N.W.2d 338, 344 (1993). | 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. Rendleman
green
2 sentences2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ 2011See United States v. Dost, 636 F.Supp. 828, 832 (S.D.Cal.1986), affd, United States v. Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239, 1244 (9th Cir.1987); Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, ¶ 43 , 134 N.M. 744 , 82 P.3d 554 (“[M]ost courts have adopted the ‘Dost factors’ to help determine whether a photograph involving a child is lewd.”); see also Myers II, 2009-NMSC-016, ¶20 , 146 N.M. 128 , 207 P.3d 1105 (applying the same factors, but emphasizing that “ ‘these factors are neither • comprehensive nor necessarily applicable in every situation’, ... ‘there may be other factors that are equally if not more important in determ | 4 | 2008–2011 |
State v. Myers
green
1 sentence2025As for the sixth Dost factor, the jury must determine that the images “objectively appear created for the purpose of sexually stimulating.” Myers, 2011-NMSC-028, ¶ 31 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2003Lewis, 238 Ill.Dec. 679 , 712 N.E.2d at 410 . 2003Lewis, 238 Ill.Dec. 679 , 712 N.E.2d at 410 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.