# Jewell v. Seidenberg

> New Mexico Supreme Court · November 16, 1970 · 82 N.M. 120

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547992

## Case

- **Full name:** Bobbie L. JEWELL, and the Minors, Tommie Jewell, III, and Michelle M. Jewell, by Their Next Friend, Bobbie L. Jewell, Petitioners, v. Leonard SEIDENBERG and Louise Geng Seidenberg, Respondents
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 16, 1970
- **Citations:** 82 N.M. 120; 477 P.2d 296
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Compton
- **Judges:** Watson, Compton, Tackett, McKenna, Montoya
- **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547992

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that this Court does not “correct harmless error” and that appellant “must show that substantial rights have been harmed to obtain reversible error”
- concluding that failure to give appropriate Uniform Jury Instruction was not reversible error under the circumstances
- stating that “failure to give a mandatory instruction constitutes error”

## Opinion text

COMPTON, Chief Justice (dissenting).
It is my considered judgment that all Uniform Jury Instructions stand on a parity, and that the failure to give any one, where applicable, constitutes reversible error where the error is preserved for review.
It was neither the purpose of the U.J.I. committee nor this court, in adopting its proposed rules, to put trial judges in strait jackets with regard to instructions. The court’s action, in entering the mandatory Order 8000, was to give to the Bench and Bar a windfall — a surcease from a practice fraught with danger, drafting instructions in haste and with uncertainty.
The majority points out that the refused instruction was only cautionary. Be that as it may, it is the one the court said must be given. Chipping away of U.J.I. has now begun and will be camping at the door of the trial courts by what is being done.
The majority suggests that this court must keep one eye on our Rule 17(10) (§ 21-2-1(17) (10), N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp.) in construing U.J.I. If and when this is done, U.J.I. will have met its demise.
The majority having reached a different conclusion, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9547992. Public record. Not legal advice.