State v. Romero

4 Citing cases

  1. 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."

  2. State v. Billy M

    106 N.M. 123 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 5 times
    Indicating that issues listed in the docketing statement but not addressed in the memorandum in opposition are deemed abandoned

    One issue, listed in the docketing statement but not addressed in the memorandum in opposition, is deemed abandoned. See State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App. 1985). The only remaining issue is whether jeopardy attaches in juvenile adjudicatory hearings once a special master begins to hear evidence.

  3. State v. Doran

    105 N.M. 300 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the prosecutor's office did not need to be disqualified because defense counsel called a prosecutor as a witness

    Issues not briefed are abandoned. State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 525, 710 P.2d 92 (1985). We affirm.

  4. Matter of Angela R

    105 N.M. 133 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 5 times
    Stating that children's court, as a court of limited jurisdiction, may only act in manner specifically authorized by statute

    Other issues listed in the docketing statement but not briefed are deemed abandoned. State v. Romero, 103 N.M. 532, 710 P.2d 99 (Ct.App. 1985). We affirm.