State v. Romero

14 Citing cases

  1. State v. Henderson

    116 N.M. 541 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that parties may not change their argument on appeal

    The trial court denied the request on the ground that Defendant did not expose himself to public view. See State v. Artrip, 112 N.M. 87, 811 P.2d 585 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 112 N.M. 21, 810 P.2d 1241 (1991); State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 525, 710 P.2d 92 (1985). In support of his requested instructions, Defendant argued that exposure to anyone other than himself constituted exposure to public view.

  2. State v. Franco

    2019 NMCA 57 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 5 times

    Haar , 1990-NMCA-076, ¶ 12, 110 N.M. 517, 797 P.2d 306. {19} We reached the same conclusion in State v. Romero , 1985-NMCA-096, ¶¶ 5-20, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99, wherein we analyzed NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-14 (1975, amended 1996), which defined indecent exposure as "a person knowingly and intentionally exposing his primary genital area to public view." We noted that "it is not necessary that the exposure be made with the intent that some particular person see it, but only that the exposure be made where it is subject to being viewed by a person or persons which the law seeks to protect from exposure to such lewd conduct."

  3. Wisneski v. State

    398 Md. 578 (Md. 2007)   Cited 23 times
    Reviewing cases from other jurisdictions construing the common law and interpreting Maryland's common law crime of indecent exposure as requiring a public exposure that "was observed, or was likely to have been observed, by one or more persons"

    For some, the classification of the location as "private" is dispositive, as Wisneski asserts. Courts in Indiana and New Mexico, for example, interpreting statutes, have held that an indecent exposure occurring inside a private dwelling was not subject to criminal penalties. See Long v. State, 666 N.E.2d 1258, 1261 (Ind.App. 1996) (holding that, although "a private residence or private club is not a public place," the members-only strip club was a public place because membership only cost one dollar and therefore it was open to the public without restraint); State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99, 103 (1985) (conviction for indecent exposure in private residence before two children reversed where "[i]t [wa]s undisputed that the acts of defendant upon which the state relied to establish the convictions of indecent exposure occurred within the confines of a private residence . . . [and] were not subject to being viewed by the public generally," meaning they were not "perpetrated in a place accessible or visible to the general public"). But see United States v. Graham, 56 M.J. 266, 269 (U.S.A.F.2002) ("At the onset, we note that Romero represents the minority view, which we generally decline to follow.

  4. State v. Henderson

    116 N.M. 537 (N.M. 1993)   Cited 14 times
    Providing that appellate courts are reluctant to presume that Legislature disagrees with judicial interpretation of a statute when the Legislature took no steps to change the statute after prior judicial interpretation

    Henderson argues that the Court of Appeals has wrongly narrowed the statute with its interpretation of "public view." The Court of Appeals first interpreted the meaning of "public view" in State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 536, 710 P.2d 99, 103 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 525, 710 P.2d 92 (1985). After an extensive inquiry into the history of the offense, the Court determined that the legislature intended the offense to be committed only if it is "intentionally perpetrated in a place accessible or visible to the general public."

  5. State v. Duran

    No. A-1-CA-36021 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2019)

    However, by failing to brief the warrantless arrest theory on appeal, Defendant abandoned any argument as to his arrest and subsequent search being warrantless, leaving the district court's conclusion under that standard unchallenged on appeal. See State v. Romero, 1985-NMCA-096, ¶ 1, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 ("Issues raised in the docketing statement but not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned."). Accordingly, we do not further address the legality of his arrest and subsequent search nor whether any evidence obtained from that arrest should be suppressed.

  6. State v. Sutton

    No. 33,643 (N.M. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2015)   Cited 1 times

    We therefore turn our attention to the two remaining issues, by which Defendant has challenged limitations upon cross-examination of the victim concerning his prior convictions and his mental health issues. [MIO 11-30] See generally State v. Romero, 1985-NMCA-096, ¶ 1, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 ("Issues raised in the docketing statement but not briefed on appeal are deemed abandoned."). {4} With respect to prior felony convictions, the memorandum in opposition clarifies that Defendant was only permitted to elicit the fact that the victim had been convicted in New Mexico in 2013, and in Florida more than ten years previously. [MIO 6] The district court precluded Defendant from presenting extraneous evidence of the victim's Florida convictions.

  7. Wisneski v. State

    169 Md. App. 527 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2006)   Cited 25 times
    Deciding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in letting the State reopen its case to introduce a stipulation into evidence

    [I]t is apparent that the Legislature intended to make it possible to indecently expose oneself in a private place. Wisneski relies on State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 525, 710 P.2d 92 (1985). There, the defendant exposed himself to his girlfriend's minor daughter while in the living room of his home, and to her other minor daughter while in the kitchen of his home.

  8. State v. Artrip

    112 N.M. 87 (N.M. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    "Public view" is not defined by the statute but depends on the circumstances of each case. State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 536, 710 P.2d 99, 103 (Ct.App. 1985). We held in Romero that public view required that "the offense must be intentionally perpetrated in a place accessible or visible to the general public."

  9. State v. Whitaker

    164 Ariz. 359 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 12 times
    In Whitaker, 793 P.2d at 119, citing Greene, 381 S.E.2d at 311, the court explained the determination of what constitutes a public place is a question of fact.

    Indecent exposure and particular acts and forms of lewdness or gross indecency with respect to sexual relations constituted criminal offenses at common law. State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 534, 710 P.2d 99, 101 (App. 1985), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 525, 710 P.2d 92 (1985); Annot., 96 A.L.R.3d 692, 693 (1979). At common law, the elements of indecent exposure were the willful exposure of the person in a public place in the presence of others.

  10. State v. Hall

    107 N.M. 17 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's prior conviction for assault with a deadly weapon upon a peace officer for impeachment purposes in the defendant's trial for second degree murder, despite the similarity of the crimes

    The issues raised in defendant's docketing statement, but not briefed, are deemed abandoned. State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App. 1985). We affirm.