State v. Trevizo — New Mexico Supreme Court affirms suppression of privileged medical statements
Case State of New Mexico v. Alexee J. Trevizo Court New Mexico Supreme Court Judge Michael E. Vigil (appointment info […]
Case State of New Mexico v. Alexee J. Trevizo Court New Mexico Supreme Court Judge Michael E. Vigil (appointment info […]
Case Ruben A. Valerio, Personal Representative of the Estate of Candido Valerio, Deceased; Cultural Energy, a New Mexico Non-Profit Corporation
Case State of New Mexico v. Carlos Miguel Mendez Court New Mexico Supreme Court Date Decided July 13, 2026 Docket
Case State of New Mexico v. James Morgan Court New Mexico Supreme Court Date Decided July 13, 2026 Docket No.
Case In the Matter of Hon. Brent A. Detsoi, McKinley County Magistrate Court Court New Mexico Supreme Court Date Decided
Case State of New Mexico v. Judah Elijah Trujillo Court Supreme Court of New Mexico Date Decided July 9, 2026
Case State of New Mexico v. Adrian Dontae Causey Court New Mexico Supreme Court Date Decided July 8, 2026 Docket
Case State of New Mexico v. Hezekiah D. Eaker Court New Mexico Supreme Court Judge Vargas (Michelle Lujan Grisham, 2020)
Case American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico v. New Mexico Corrections Department and Andrew Kuhlmann, in his official capacity
Case State of New Mexico v. David Henry Bowersox a/k/a David Bowersox Court New Mexico Court of Appeals Judge Hanisee
Case Katherine Ferlic, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Pamela Smith, deceased v. Lovelace Health System, LLC, d/b/a
Case State of New Mexico v. Joshua Shane Freeman Court Supreme Court of New Mexico Judge Bacon (Michelle Lujan Grisham,
Case Kalvin Kiehne, et al. v. New Mexico Department of Game and Fish and New Mexico State Game Commission Court
The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed convictions for battery, shooting at or from a motor vehicle with a firearm enhancement, and conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence — formalizing as published precedent that the firearm enhancement under NMSA 1978, § 31-18-16 does not violate double jeopardy when applied to a shooting-at-vehicle conviction, and holding for the first time in a published opinion that identifying bullet-impact marks in photographs constitutes lay, not expert, testimony.