rule of fundamental error in New Mexico

2024“The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 21 , 124 N.M. 455 , 952 P.2d 450 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 21 , 124 N.M. 455 , 952 P.2d 450 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019“The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 16 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[F]ailure to instruct the jury on an essential element . . . ordinarily is fundamental error even when the defendant fails to object or offer a curative instruction.” State v. Barber, 2004- NMSC-019, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 .

2019“The rule of fundamental error applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Sutphin, 2007-NMSC-045, ¶ 16 , 142 N.M. 191 , 164 P.3d 72 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[F]ailure to instruct the jury on an essential element . . . ordinarily is fundamental error even when the defendant fails to object or offer a curative instruction.” State v. Barber, 2004- NMSC-019, ¶ 20, 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 .

2016“The rule of fundamental error 3 applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so 4 doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if 5 substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 21 , 124 6 N.M. 455 , 952 P.2d 450 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so 8 egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that 9 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Trujil

2016“The rule of fundamental error 3 applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so 4 doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if 5 substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 21 , 124 6 N.M. 455 , 952 P.2d 450 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so 8 egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that 9 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Trujil

2009See Orosco, 113 N.M. at 784 , 833 P.2d at 1150 (recognizing that the rule of fundamental error applies when substantial justice has not been done); State v. Mantelli, 2002-NMCA-033, ¶ 46 , 131 N.M. 692 , 42 P.3d 272 (recognizing that “[i]n such close circumstances, where the error involves the central issue in the case, it is the better policy to require a new trial under the correct instruction”).

2009See Orosco, 113 N.M. at 784 , 833 P.2d at 1150 (recognizing that the rule of fundamental error applies when substantial justice has not been done); State v. Mantelli, 2002-NMCA-033, ¶ 46 , 131 N.M. 692 , 42 P.3d 272 (recognizing that “[i]n such close circumstances, where the error involves the central issue in the case, it is the better policy to require a new trial under the correct instruction”).

2018In assessing fundamental error, this Court “considers only whether 11 the defendant has shown that there is a reasonable probability that the error was a 12 significant factor in the jury’s deliberations relative to the other evidence before 13 them.” DeGraff, 2006-NMSC-011, ¶ 22 .

2016“The rule of fundamental error 19 applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so 16 1 doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if 2 substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006 , ¶ 12, 113 3 N.M. 780 , 833 P.2d 1146 .

2016“The rule of fundamental error 3 applies only if there has been a miscarriage of justice, if the question of guilt is so 4 doubtful that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction to stand, or if 5 substantial justice has not been done.” State v. Dartez, 1998-NMCA-009, ¶ 21 , 124 6 N.M. 455 , 952 P.2d 450 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 7 “Prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of fundamental error when it is so 8 egregious and had such a persuasive and prejudicial effect on the jury’s verdict that 9 the defendant was deprived of a fair trial.” State v. Trujil

2016Our appellate courts 11 apply the fundamental error doctrine “very guardedly . . . and never in aid of strictly 12 legal, technical, or unsubstantial claims[.]” State v. Garcia, 1942-NMSC-030 , ¶ 23, 13 46 N.M. 302 , 128 P.2d 459 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 {10} Defendant was charged with a violation of the City of Albuquerque traffic code. 15 The text of the ordinance at issue states “[n]o operator of a vehicle shall fail to keep 16 such vehicle within the boundaries of a marked traffic lane, except when lawfully 17 passing another, making a lawful turning movement or

2016Our appellate courts 11 apply the fundamental error doctrine “very guardedly . . . and never in aid of strictly 12 legal, technical, or unsubstantial claims[.]” State v. Garcia, 1942-NMSC-030 , ¶ 23, 13 46 N.M. 302 , 128 P.2d 459 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 {10} Defendant was charged with a violation of the City of Albuquerque traffic code. 15 The text of the ordinance at issue states “[n]o operator of a vehicle shall fail to keep 16 such vehicle within the boundaries of a marked traffic lane, except when lawfully 17 passing another, making a lawful turning movement or

2016“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be resorted to in 4 criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence appears indisputably, 5 or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction 6 to stand.” State v. Rodriguez, 1970-NMSC-073 , ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 503 , 469 P.2d 148 . 7 {27} Review on the basis of plain error is less stringent than with fundamental error 8 and only applies to evidentiary matters.

2016“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be resorted to in 4 criminal cases only for the protection of those whose innocence appears indisputably, 5 or open to such question that it would shock the conscience to permit the conviction 6 to stand.” State v. Rodriguez, 1970-NMSC-073 , ¶ 10, 81 N.M. 503 , 469 P.2d 148 . 7 {27} Review on the basis of plain error is less stringent than with fundamental error 8 and only applies to evidentiary matters.

2014With this standard in mind, 14 “[w]hen reviewing a jury instruction for fundamental error, we seek to determine 15 whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury 16 instruction.” State v. Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 517 (internal 17 quotation marks and citation omitted).

2014With this standard in mind, 14 “[w]hen reviewing a jury instruction for fundamental error, we seek to determine 15 whether a reasonable juror would have been confused or misdirected by the jury 16 instruction.” State v. Arrendondo, 2012-NMSC-013, ¶ 21 , 278 P.3d 517 (internal 17 quotation marks and citation omitted).

2000Initially, we determine whether the trial court erred under Defendant’s unpreserved appellate argument. {34} The trial court’s admission of Lausell’s testimony is consistent with this Court’s discussion in Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 43 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 : At common law, prior consistent statements were admissible for rehabilitation on several theories: (1) to place a supposed inconsistent statement in context to refute the alleged inconsistency; (2) to support the denial of making an inconsistent statement; (3) to refute the suggestion that the witness’s memory is flawed due to the pa

2000Initially, we determine whether the trial court erred under Defendant’s unpreserved appellate argument. {34} The trial court’s admission of Lausell’s testimony is consistent with this Court’s discussion in Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, ¶ 43 , 126 N.M. 338 , 969 P.2d 313 : At common law, prior consistent statements were admissible for rehabilitation on several theories: (1) to place a supposed inconsistent statement in context to refute the alleged inconsistency; (2) to support the denial of making an inconsistent statement; (3) to refute the suggestion that the witness’s memory is flawed due to the pa

1993Even if under New Mexico definitions of fundamental error, it is appropriate to extend the doctrine to the State, I am not persuaded that fundamental error exists in this particular instance under either the Krynicki analysis or the Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 , 61 S.Ct. 719 , 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941), analysis relied on by the majority.

1993Even if under New Mexico definitions of fundamental error, it is appropriate to extend the doctrine to the State, I am not persuaded that fundamental error exists in this particular instance under either the Krynicki analysis or the Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552 , 61 S.Ct. 719 , 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941), analysis relied on by the majority.

1993“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be applied only under exceptional circumstances and solely to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 297 , 772 P.2d 322, 331 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989).

1993“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be applied only under exceptional circumstances and solely to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 297 , 772 P.2d 322, 331 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989).

1993“The doctrine of fundamental error is to be applied only under exceptional circumstances and solely to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” State v. Clark, 108 N.M. 288, 297 , 772 P.2d 322, 331 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923 , 110 S.Ct. 291 , 107 L.Ed.2d 271 (1989).

1971State v. Garcia, 19 N.M. 414 , 143 P. 1012 (1914), in the opinion upon rehearing, laid down the rule of fundamental error in New Mexico when it stated: “There exists in every court, however, an inherent power to see that a man’s fundamental rights are protected in every case.

1971State v. Garcia, 19 N.M. 414 , 143 P. 1012 (1914), in the opinion upon rehearing, laid down the rule of fundamental error in New Mexico when it stated: “There exists in every court, however, an inherent power to see that a man’s fundamental rights are protected in every case.