State v. Desnoyers
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
Those changes and a later limit on applying its adult rule to juveniles are listed below. Courts continue to use Desnoyers for discovery, new-trial, and double-jeopardy issues.
36 later cases cite State v. Desnoyers; 36 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on State v. Desnoyers?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
Treatments
Overruled in part
-
The New Mexico Supreme Court overruled Desnoyers to the extent its Sixth Amendment waiver rule conflicted with intervening United States Supreme Court precedent.
State v. Mares · New Mexico Supreme Court · filed
Under the controlling United States Supreme Court precedent of Montejo, Defendant validly waived his Sixth Amendment right to counsel through his waiver of Miranda rights even though he had requested and obtained counsel at his first appearance. To the extent that our precedent in Desnoyers conflicts with Montejo, Desnoyers is now overruled.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Abrogated
-
The Supreme Court displaced the reliability test that Desnoyers used to admit testimonial hearsay under the Confrontation Clause; testimonial statements require unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Crawford v. Washington · Supreme Court of the United States · filed
Where testimonial evidence is at issue, however, the Sixth Amendment demands what the common law required: unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Limited
-
The New Mexico Supreme Court declined to apply Desnoyers's adult requirement to affirmatively invoke counsel to juveniles after their Sixth Amendment right has attached.
State v. Rivas · New Mexico Supreme Court · filed
While the Sixth Amendment right must often be explicitly asserted before it offers its protection in the context of police questioning, both the case law examining the juvenile experience in adversarial settings and our statutory provisions suggest the explicit invocation requirement is both inappropriate and unworkable for children. Compare Darryl P., 63 A.3d at 1190 (“The prophylactic right to counsel only comes into existence when it is unambiguously invoked . . . . [T]he constitutional right to counsel, by contrast, comes into existence automatically, whether invoked or not . . . .”); with State v. Desnoyers, 2002-NMSC-031, ¶ 18, 132 N.M. 756, 55 P.3d 968 (concluding adult defendant had not asserted Sixth Amendment right based on failure to make an affirmative request at time of questioning), abrogated on other grounds by State v. Collier, 2013-NMSC-015, ¶¶ 12, 14, 301 P.3d 370.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Desnoyers and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace