State v. Lucero

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an issue that was 16 not raised in the docketing statement, or in a timely motion to amend, need not be 17 considered
• expressing the same belief and commenting that asking a jury to recognize the distinction “would be like asking a jury to consider a defendant’s confession, not for the truth but only [for the fact] that he made it.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Altgilbers
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1989-12-07· cited 96×
• State v. Casaus
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1996-01-12· cited 41×
• State v. Lucero
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 1992-09-29· cited 34×
• United States v. Michael Lee Bolick
  Fourth Circuit· 1990-11-06· cited 23×
• People v. Newbrough
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1990-10-09· cited 20×
• People v. McClendon
  Appellate Court of Illinois· 1990-05-09· cited 20×
• State v. Gomez
  New Mexico Court of Appeals· 2001-08-27· cited 19×