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 1983–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Lopezgreen2 sentences2024Defendant’s argument instead is that she lacked a similar motive for cross-examining the witness at the preliminary hearing, due to the later disclosure by the State of lapel video from an investigating deputy. [BIC 17] This lapel video, disclosed the day after the victim’s preliminary hearing testimony, showed a woman on scene, “shortly after the robbery, in what could be described as a red coat,” and this woman was not Defendant. [BIC 1] In district court, Defendant argued that the State’s late disclosure of the video evidence limited Defendant’s “ability to meaningfully cross-examine” the v 2019See Lopez, 2011-NMSC-035, ¶ 12 (concluding that there was no Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause violation when the defendant had an opportunity to and actually did cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Massengillgreen2 sentences2011Despite the change in the defendant’s theory, Gonzales concluded that because the defendant “was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing, [the] defendant was not denied the right to confront the witness against him.” Id. at 227, 824 P.2d at 1029 . {7} In Henderson, the preliminary hearing testimony of two unavailable witnesses was admitted at trial. 2006-NMCA-059, ¶ 7 , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 . “[T]he trial court acknowledged that [the defendant could not have cross-examined [the unavailable witnesses] at the preliminary hearing on all issues that we 1992Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Gonzalesred2 sentences2011We allowed the witness’s testimony to be 8 admitted, saying “the motive to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing 9 was similar to the motive to cross-examine at trial because in both instances, the 10 issues were whether a crime was committed and whether the defendant had 11 committed the crime.” Id. at 226 , 824 P.2d at 1028 . 12 At the preliminary hearing in this case, Defendant had an opportunity and 13 similar motive to cross-examine Pollack. 2011We allowed the witness’s testimony to be 8 admitted, saying “the motive to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing 9 was similar to the motive to cross-examine at trial because in both instances, the 10 issues were whether a crime was committed and whether the defendant had 11 committed the crime.” Id. at 226 , 824 P.2d at 1028 . 12 At the preliminary hearing in this case, Defendant had an opportunity and 13 similar motive to cross-examine Pollack. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Hibbsgreen2 sentences1983See also State v. Hibbs, 82 N.M. 722 , 487 P.2d 150 (Ct.App.1971). 1983See also State v. Hibbs, 82 N.M. 722 , 487 P.2d 150 (Ct.App.1971). | 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. Henderson
green
2 sentences2011Despite the change in the defendant’s theory, Gonzales concluded that because the defendant “was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing, [the] defendant was not denied the right to confront the witness against him.” Id. at 227, 824 P.2d at 1029 . {7} In Henderson, the preliminary hearing testimony of two unavailable witnesses was admitted at trial. 2006-NMCA-059, ¶ 7 , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 . “[T]he trial court acknowledged that [the defendant could not have cross-examined [the unavailable witnesses] at the preliminary hearing on all issues that we 2011Despite the change in the defendant’s theory, Gonzales concluded that because the defendant “was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the preliminary hearing, [the] defendant was not denied the right to confront the witness against him.” Id. at 227, 824 P.2d at 1029 . {7} In Henderson, the preliminary hearing testimony of two unavailable witnesses was admitted at trial. 2006-NMCA-059, ¶ 7 , 139 N.M. 595 , 136 P.3d 1005 . “[T]he trial court acknowledged that [the defendant could not have cross-examined [the unavailable witnesses] at the preliminary hearing on all issues that we | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Holly
green
2 sentences1983In State v. Holly, 79 N.M. 516 , 445 P.2d 393 (Ct.App.1968), this Court decided on constitutional grounds that preliminary hearing testimony can be introduced at the trial where the witness is unavailable and the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine and confront the witness at the preliminary hearing. 1983In State v. Holly, 79 N.M. 516 , 445 P.2d 393 (Ct.App.1968), this Court decided on constitutional grounds that preliminary hearing testimony can be introduced at the trial where the witness is unavailable and the defendant had an opportunity to cross-examine and confront the witness at the preliminary hearing. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
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.