# State v. Martin

> New Mexico Supreme Court · July 25, 1984 · 101 N.M. 595

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790979

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sophie MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 25, 1984
- **Citations:** 101 N.M. 595; 686 P.2d 937
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Walters
- **Judges:** Federici, Sosa, Riordan, Walters, Stowers
- **Cited by:** 138 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/9790979

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that unchallenged inappropriate comments and gestures from the trial judge, along with the defendant's improperly admitted criminal history and the court's refusal to admit films to corroborate the defendant's claim of victim's tendencies toward violent sexual condu…
- stating that 6 cumulative error “requires reversal of a defendant’s conviction when the cumulative 7 impact of errors which occurred at trial was so prejudicial that the defendant was 8 deprived of a fair trial”
- holding that an appellate court may not consider matters not of record
- holding that the cumulative error “doctrine cannot be invoked if no irregularities occurred or if the record as a whole demonstrates that a defendant received a fair trial” (citation omitted)

## Opinion text

WALTERS, Justice (specially concurring).
I concur in all portions of the majority opinion except Point III B. I believe the Court of Appeals was correct in State v. Gallegos, and that the 1982 addition to the Use Note referred to by the majority was improvidently approved. The jury’s obligation to render a true verdict should be fulfilled without concern for the consequences of the verdict. Either UJI Crim. 50.06 ought to be given, as promulgated, in all cases without elaboration, or not in any.
As amended, the Use Note for UJI Crim. 50.06 still forbids a jury to know that death may be the penalty for one accused and convicted in a capital murder case, thus properly anesthetizing any feelings of sympathy or of guilty conscience that might influence its deliberations if it were aware that death would result from a verdict of guilty; but it permits advising a jury when death will not be sought as the penalty, thereby tacitly encouraging a guilty verdict because the conscience-cleansing instruction informs the jury that, even if it finds defendant guilty, it will not have had a role in putting defendant to death. Such subtle pressures on a jury’s verdict are improper and should not be condoned.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9790979. Public record. Not legal advice.