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 1 courts 2012–2025 2 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. Sotogreen1 sentence2020Compare Soto, 2008-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 26-27 (excluding evidence obtained after an officer discovers and executes a preexisting arrest warrant, because the first and third factors weighed in favor of suppression), with Strieff, 136 S. Ct. at 2063 (“Although the illegal stop was close in time to [the defendant’s] arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the [s]tate.”), Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 35, 37-38 (concluding exclusion of the evidence is unnecessary when the first factor weighs in favor of suppression but the second and third factors weigh in favor of attenuation), and | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tapiagreen1 sentence2020Compare Soto, 2008-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 26-27 (excluding evidence obtained after an officer discovers and executes a preexisting arrest warrant, because the first and third factors weighed in favor of suppression), with Strieff, 136 S. Ct. at 2063 (“Although the illegal stop was close in time to [the defendant’s] arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the [s]tate.”), Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 35, 37-38 (concluding exclusion of the evidence is unnecessary when the first factor weighs in favor of suppression but the second and third factors weigh in favor of attenuation), and | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2020Compare Soto, 2008-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 26-27 (excluding evidence obtained after an officer discovers and executes a preexisting arrest warrant, because the first and third factors weighed in favor of suppression), with Strieff, 136 S. Ct. at 2063 (“Although the illegal stop was close in time to [the defendant’s] arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the [s]tate.”), Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 35, 37-38 (concluding exclusion of the evidence is unnecessary when the first factor weighs in favor of suppression but the second and third factors weigh in favor of attenuation), and | 1 | 1 |
Utah v. Strieffgreen1 sentence2020Compare Soto, 2008-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 26-27 (excluding evidence obtained after an officer discovers and executes a preexisting arrest warrant, because the first and third factors weighed in favor of suppression), with Strieff, 136 S. Ct. at 2063 (“Although the illegal stop was close in time to [the defendant’s] arrest, that consideration is outweighed by two factors supporting the [s]tate.”), Tapia, 2018-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 35, 37-38 (concluding exclusion of the evidence is unnecessary when the first factor weighs in favor of suppression but the second and third factors weigh in favor of attenuation), and | 1 | 1 |
State v. Garzagreen1 sentence2015See Garza, 2009-NMSC-038, ¶ 2 (stating that the length of delay 9 necessary to trigger the speedy trial inquiry is eighteen months for complex cases). 10 The district court weighed the length-of-delay factor “heavily against the State[.]” 11 Additionally, owing to what the district court characterized as Defendant’s “mostly 12 pro forma” assertions of her right to a speedy trial, it weighed the assertion-of-right 13 factor “lightly against the State.” Because the State has not attacked the district 14 court’s findings in regard to the first and third factors, they are conclusive. | 1 | 1 |
Oldham v. Oldhamgreen2 sentences2013Id.; see Oldham v. Oldham, 2011-NMSC-007 , 149 N.M. 215 , 247 P.3d 736 . 16 {9} The district court apparently agreed with Wife that the first and third factors 17 supported dismissal. 2013Id.; see Oldham v. Oldham, 2011-NMSC-007 , 149 N.M. 215 , 247 P.3d 736 . 16 {9} The district court apparently agreed with Wife that the first and third factors 17 supported dismissal. | 1 | 1 |
Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc.green2 sentences2012See Beavers, 118 N.M. at 399 , 881 P.2d at 1384 . 2012See Beavers, 118 N.M. at 399 , 881 P.2d at 1384 . | 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. Garcia
green
1 sentence2025Garcia, 2005-NMSC-038, ¶ 7 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Arvizo
green
1 sentence2021We explain. {17} Examining the first factor, whether Defendant could have committed the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense, we conclude that the elements of the crimes differ in such a way that each may be committed without necessarily committing the other. {18} In State v. Arvizo, our Supreme Court discussed the differences between third- degree and second-degree CSCM with child victims aged thirteen to eighteen years. 2018-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 , 417 P.3d 384 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Arvizo
green
1 sentence2021We explain. {17} Examining the first factor, whether Defendant could have committed the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense, we conclude that the elements of the crimes differ in such a way that each may be committed without necessarily committing the other. {18} In State v. Arvizo, our Supreme Court discussed the differences between third- degree and second-degree CSCM with child victims aged thirteen to eighteen years. 2018-NMSC-026, ¶ 14 , 417 P.3d 384 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Meadors
green
1 sentence2021Id. {16} We need only analyze the first and third factors to conclude that Defendant was not entitled to a lesser included offense instruction on third-degree CSCM under thirteen. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.