State v. Reynolds

48 Citing cases

  1. State v. Muqqddin

    148 N.M. 845 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that the defendant's act of penetrating the gas tank of a van with a nail constituted an entry for purposes of the burglary statute

    State v. Tixier, 89 N.M. 297, 298-99, 551 P.2d 987, 988-89 (Ct.App. 1976) (holding that a one-half-inch penetration with an instrument is enough to effectuate an entry; "[a]ny penetration, however slight, of the interior space is sufficient"). {8} This Court's opinions in Rodriguez and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct.App. 1990), define the limits of entry in the context of vehicle burglary. In Rodriguez, the defendant reached into the uncovered bed of a pickup truck and removed a toolbox with the intent of taking it unlawfully. 101 N.M. at 193, 679 P.2d at 1291.

  2. State v. Office of the Pub. Defender ex rel. Muqqddin

    Opinion Number: 2012-NMSC-029 (N.M. Aug. 16, 2012)

    {7} Defendant Muqqddin appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, "arguing that puncturing the [g]as tank did not constitute an 'entry' under the burglary statute." The Court of Appeals analogized the facts presented to the facts of both State v. Rodriguez, 101 N.M. 192, 679 P.2d 1290 (Ct. App. 1984), and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct. App. 1990), involving an entry into the open bed of a pickup truck and the engine compartment of a vehicle respectively. State v. Muqqddin, 2010-NMCA-069, ¶ 8, 148 N.M. 845, 242 P.3d 412.

  3. State v. Office of the Pub. Defender

    285 P.3d 622 (N.M. 2012)   Cited 81 times
    Recognizing that where general words follow words of a more specific meaning, the general words are "construed as applying to persons or things of the same kind or class as those specifically mentioned"

    {7} Defendant Muqqddin appealed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, “arguing that puncturing the [g]as tank did not constitute an ‘entry’ under the burglary statute.” The Court of Appeals analogized the facts presented to the facts of both State v. Rodriguez, 101 N.M. 192, 679 P.2d 1290 (Ct.App.1984), and State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct.App.1990), involving an entry into the open bed of a pickup truck and the engine compartment of a vehicle respectively. State v. Muqqddin, 2010–NMCA–069, ¶ 8, 148 N.M. 845, 242 P.3d 412.

  4. State v. Salas

    2017 NMCA 57 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 16 times
    Finding no due process violation where supplemental criminal information seeking sentence enhancements was filed four days after the defendant's conviction

    However, even assuming that the conduct in the current case implicates Rule 11-615, "the choice of remedy [for a violation of the rule] is within the sound discretion of the [district] court." State v. Reynolds , 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 28, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082. {20} In Reynolds , the defendant alleged that one of the state's witnesses, who had already testified, discussed the trial with another of the state's witnesses, who had not yet testified.

  5. State v. Holt

    352 P.3d 702 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Reviewing cases from several states

    Similarly, in State v. Reynolds, the Court noted that “[a]ny penetration, however slight, of the interior space is sufficient [to constitute entry].” 1990–NMCA–122, ¶ 37, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, neither of these cases was using the term to address the question presented here. Rather, both Sorrelhorse and Reynolds were concerned with the extent to which the defendant penetrated the prohibited space.

  6. Rodriguez v. State ex rel. Rodriguez

    No. 31,532 (N.M. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 2012)

    [MIO 2] However, we have no record before us to support any of these allegations. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990) ("Matters outside the record present no issue for review."); Santa Fe Exploration Co. v. Oil Conservation Comm'n, 114 N.M. 103, 108, 835 P.2d 819, 824 (1992) (stating that where a party fails to cite any portion of the record to support its factual allegations, the appellate court need not consider its argument on appeal). We therefore decline to address them.

  7. Dzula v. Dzula

    NO. 31,246 (N.M. Ct. App. Sep. 22, 2011)

    In addition, there is nothing in the district court's decisions or in the record on appeal to support Father's contentions, and matters that are outside the record present no issue for review by this Court. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct. App. 1990). Father again claims that Mother received a payment for $938 that should have been credited toward his obligation for child support arrears.

  8. STATE v. LOYA

    2011 NMCA 77 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that sufficient evidence supported a conviction for aggravated DUI where the defendant drove with bloodshot, watery eyes, had slurred speech and an odor of alcohol, the defendant admitted to drinking, and the defendant refused to submit to chemical testing after being read the Implied Consent Act

    {14} We have previously held that a district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a motion for mistrial after questionable comments. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082 (Ct. App. 1990). In the opening arguments of Reynolds, the prosecutor asserted that the defendant had given the police a "cock-and-bull story."

  9. State v. Comitz

    443 P.3d 1130 (N.M. 2019)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that the defendant's multiple conspiracy convictions violated double jeopardy "[b]ecause [the d]efendant's actions were all part of one, overarching conspiratorial agreement"

    {47} If the district court determines that a prosecutor’s comment or questioning of a witness "is substantially likely to cause a miscarriage of justice, the judge should grant a defendant’s motion for a mistrial." See State v. Reynolds , 1990-NMCA-122, ¶ 12, 111 N.M. 263, 804 P.2d 1082. However, when a defendant gives testimony "that ‘opens the door’ to inadmissible evidence, the doctrine of curative admissibility in some circumstances may permit the State to rebut that claim with otherwise inadmissible evidence."

  10. In re Convisser

    148 N.M. 732 (N.M. 2010)   Cited 9 times
    Recognizing that a mere assertion of prejudice, without demonstrating how the result would have been different but for the alleged error, is not a showing of prejudice

    First, although Respondent asserts that disciplinary counsel dismisses many more complaints than should be allowable under Rule 17-307(B), his assertion has no support in the record. See State v. Reynolds, 111 N.M. 263, 267, 804 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct.App. 1990) ("Matters outside the record present no issue for review."). Moreover, even when Rule 17-307(B) precludes disciplinary counsel from summarily dismissing a complaint, the Rules Governing Discipline still provide for a formal investigation procedure and the possibility of an informal disposition that may avoid the need for the filing of formal charges.