indicia of distinctness factors (New Mexico) · Go Syfert
← New Mexico issues

indicia of distinctness factors in New Mexico

6 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2012–2021 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
State v. Bernalgreen
nm · 2006 · cited in 4 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2017
2 sentences

2017Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 16 (internal quotation 3 marks and citation omitted).

2015Instead, we adhere to the traditional indicia of distinctness analysis, 7 which “amounts to a canon of construction” designed to ascertain legislative intent. 8 Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 11 . 9 {23} Herron v. State, 1991-NMSC-012 , 111 N.M. 357 , 805 P.2d 624 , established 10 the unit of prosecution indicia of distinctness “under the modern analysis.” Bernal, 11 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 .

34
State v. Garciagreen
nmctapp · 2009 · cited in 1 New Mexico opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 2009-NMCA- 13 107, ¶ 10, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors 14 where the defendant challenged his convictions of petty misdemeanor battery and 15 aggravated battery); State v. Stewart, 2005-NMCA-126, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 500 , 122 P.3d 16 1269 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors where neither party addressed the 17 issue of whether the unit of prosecution is clearly defined in New Mexico’s statute 18 defining battery against a household member). 19 We thus proceed to the second part of our unit-of-prosecution analysis a

2012See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 2009-NMCA- 13 107, ¶ 10, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors 14 where the defendant challenged his convictions of petty misdemeanor battery and 15 aggravated battery); State v. Stewart, 2005-NMCA-126, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 500 , 122 P.3d 16 1269 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors where neither party addressed the 17 issue of whether the unit of prosecution is clearly defined in New Mexico’s statute 18 defining battery against a household member). 19 We thus proceed to the second part of our unit-of-prosecution analysis a

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
State v. Morro green
nmctapp · 1999
2 sentences

2015Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 11 . {23} Herron v. State, 1991-NMSC-012 , 111 N.M. 357 , 805 P.2d 624 , established the unit 2 Sanchez involved a trial court’s dismissal of an indictment alleging the defendants “received, retained or disposed of 72 different items that belonged to four separate parties.” 1982-NMSC-012 , ¶ 2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).The indictment combined the charges into one count, enhancing the crime to a third degree felony.

2015Instead, we adhere to the traditional indicia of distinctness analysis, 7 which “amounts to a canon of construction” designed to ascertain legislative intent. 8 Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 11 . 9 {23} Herron v. State, 1991-NMSC-012 , 111 N.M. 357 , 805 P.2d 624 , established 10 the unit of prosecution indicia of distinctness “under the modern analysis.” Bernal, 11 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 .

22015–2015
Herron v. State green
nm · 1991
2 sentences

2015Instead, we adhere to the traditional indicia of distinctness analysis, 7 which “amounts to a canon of construction” designed to ascertain legislative intent. 8 Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 11 . 9 {23} Herron v. State, 1991-NMSC-012 , 111 N.M. 357 , 805 P.2d 624 , established 10 the unit of prosecution indicia of distinctness “under the modern analysis.” Bernal, 11 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 .

2015Instead, we adhere to the traditional indicia of distinctness analysis, 7 which “amounts to a canon of construction” designed to ascertain legislative intent. 8 Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, ¶ 11 . 9 {23} Herron v. State, 1991-NMSC-012 , 111 N.M. 357 , 805 P.2d 624 , established 10 the unit of prosecution indicia of distinctness “under the modern analysis.” Bernal, 11 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 15 .

22015–2015
State v. Gallegos green
nm · 2011
1 sentence

2021Gallegos, 2011-NMSC-027, ¶ 33 .

12021–2021
State v. Bernard green
nmctapp · 2015
2 sentences

2021Cf. State v. Bernard, 2015-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 25-26 , 355 P.3d 831 (“[W]e do not believe that Olsson’s abandonment of Herron[] . . . requires a wholesale departure from an indicia of distinctness analysis if the facts of a unit of prosecution case render such analysis practicable.”).

2021Cf. State v. Bernard, 2015-NMCA-089, ¶¶ 25-26 , 355 P.3d 831 (“[W]e do not believe that Olsson’s abandonment of Herron[] . . . requires a wholesale departure from an indicia of distinctness analysis if the facts of a unit of prosecution case render such analysis practicable.”).

12021–2021
State v. Stewart green
nmctapp · 2005
2 sentences

2012See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 2009-NMCA- 13 107, ¶ 10, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors 14 where the defendant challenged his convictions of petty misdemeanor battery and 15 aggravated battery); State v. Stewart, 2005-NMCA-126, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 500 , 122 P.3d 16 1269 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors where neither party addressed the 17 issue of whether the unit of prosecution is clearly defined in New Mexico’s statute 18 defining battery against a household member). 19 We thus proceed to the second part of our unit-of-prosecution analysis a

2012See, e.g., State v. Garcia, 2009-NMCA- 13 107, ¶ 10, 147 N.M. 150 , 217 P.3d 1048 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors 14 where the defendant challenged his convictions of petty misdemeanor battery and 15 aggravated battery); State v. Stewart, 2005-NMCA-126, ¶ 14 , 138 N.M. 500 , 122 P.3d 16 1269 (reviewing the indicia of distinctness factors where neither party addressed the 17 issue of whether the unit of prosecution is clearly defined in New Mexico’s statute 18 defining battery against a household member). 19 We thus proceed to the second part of our unit-of-prosecution analysis a

12012–2012

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check