State v. Romero

36 Citing cases

  1. State v. Jacquez

    147 N.M. 313 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 12 times
    Concluding that the registration sticker provides the officers with important registration information

    Whether or not the stickers can be viewed by an officer while driving is not a matter of record. See State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 280, 532 P.2d 208, 209 (Ct.App. 1975) (holding that "[m]atters outside the record present no issue for review"). We further decline Defendant's invitation to take judicial notice on this point, as the readability of registration stickers will vary depending on the distance between the two vehicles and a host of other factors.

  2. Valles v. State

    90 N.M. 347 (N.M. Ct. App. 1977)   Cited 7 times

    "If otherwise, an accused is denied the right to confront the witnesses against him." And as we further stated in State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 (Ct.App. 1975): "It has long been recognized that a transcript of prior testimony is a most useful tool in mounting an attack upon the credibility of witnesses.

  3. State v. Antillon

    129 N.M. 114 (N.M. 1999)   Cited 7 times
    Rejecting the defendant's contention that a default civil forfeiture judgment entered prior to his conviction precluded his prosecution because the forfeiture complaint and judgment were not part of the record

    We may not review matters that are outside the record. See State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 280, 532 P.2d 208, 209 (Ct.App. 1975) (refusing to review trial court's refusal to grant motion to suppress because record did not include transcript of hearing on that motion). {7} Antillon made a motion to the trial court to supplement the record with these documents, but the motion was denied.

  4. State v. Bunce

    116 N.M. 284 (N.M. 1993)   Cited 22 times
    Holding that had the "[d]efendant offered a correct instruction on mistake of fact, the trial court [would have] erred when it failed to charge the jury with that instruction" and proceeding to hold that the defendant's mistake instruction was not a proper statement of the law, but reversing for correct jury instructions on the basis of fundamental error

    Cf. SCRA 1986, 5-608(D) (Repl. Pamp. 1992) (requiring the tender of correct instructions); State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 280, 532 P.2d 208, 209 (Ct.App. 1975) (same). The Defendant's requested mistake of fact instruction, which was patterned after SCRA 1986, 14-5120, reads as follows:

  5. State v. Green

    116 N.M. 273 (N.M. 1993)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that doctrine of fundamental error required reversal of conviction when jury not instructed on all essential elements

    First, while conceding that the trial court is required to "instruct the jury upon all questions of law essential for a conviction of any crime submitted to the jury," SCRA 1986, 5-608(A) (Repl.Pamp. 1992), the State asserts that Defendant has not preserved this issue for review because at trial he neither objected to the instruction given nor offered a correct instruction regarding fraudulent intent, SCRA 1986, 5-608(D); State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 (Ct.App. 1975); State v. Garcia, 100 N.M. 120, 666 P.2d 1267 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 100 N.M. 192, 668 P.2d 308 (1983). Second, the State insists that because Defendant failed to preserve the issue by objecting or proffering a correct instruction, his conviction can be reversed only under the doctrine of fundamental error.

  6. State v. Escamilla

    107 N.M. 510 (N.M. 1988)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that mandatory life sentence upon a conviction of first- degree murder was not disproportionate or cruel and unusual punishment

    The scope of appellate review by the supreme court is limited to consideration of those matters disclosed by the record, State v. Buchanan, 78 N.M. 588, 435 P.2d 207 (1967), and matters outside the record present no issue for review. State v. Smith, 92 N.M. 533, 591 P.2d 664 (1979) (citing State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 (Ct.App. 1975). The reviewing court will not go outside the record in a criminal case.

  7. Jackson v. State

    100 N.M. 487 (N.M. 1983)   Cited 35 times
    Concluding incorrect instruction was fundamental error because it did not contain necessary elements of the crime

    This requires a proper objection or tendering of a proper instruction. See State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 (Ct.App. 1975); State v. Urban, 86 N.M. 351, 524 P.2d 523 (Ct.App. 1974); State v. Romero, 86 N.M. 99, 519 P.2d 1180 (Ct.App. 1974). The trial court has a duty to correctly instruct the jury on the law.

  8. State v. Smith

    92 N.M. 533 (N.M. 1979)   Cited 68 times
    Holding that the State is entitled to call police officer to rebut accused's allegation that police officer threatened his life

    Matters outside the record present no issue for review. State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 (Ct.App. 1975). POINT II

  9. State v. Duran

    91 N.M. 756 (N.M. 1978)   Cited 35 times
    In State v. Duran, 91 N.M. 756, 581 P.2d 19 (1978), the supreme court recognized the analysis adopted in State v. Jojola, as applicable to claims of denial of due process based on alleged prosecutorial delay.

    Under these circumstances, defendant abandoned this point on appeal, State v. Vogenthaler, 89 N.M. 150, 548 P.2d 112 (Ct.App. 1976), and there is no record upon which the review in this Court can be predicated. State v. Lujan, 79 N.M. 200, 441 P.2d 497 (1968); State v. Romero, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 (Ct.App. 1975). The burden is on appellant to provide the necessary record in this Court.

  10. State v. Wright

    458 P.3d 604 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 2 times   1 Legal Analyses

    SeeProper v. Mowry , 1977-NMCA-080, ¶ 37, 90 N.M. 710, 568 P.2d 236 ("Remarks, arguments and statements of lawyers are not evidence." (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ); State v. Romero , 1975-NMCA-017, ¶ 2, 87 N.M. 279, 532 P.2d 208 ("Matters outside the record present no issue for review."). CONCLUSION