Opinion ID: 1188849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: under wilson, the type of issue this case presents can be resolved in the future by the court of appeals.

Text: This certification was made by the Court of Appeals before the issuance of this Court's opinion in State v. Wilson, 116 N.M. 793, 867 P.2d 1175 (1994). Prior to Wilson the Court of Appeals was bound by the doctrine of Alexander v. Delgado which broadly declared that the lower court is governed by the precedents of this [C]ourt. 84 N.M. 717, 718, 507 P.2d 778, 779 (1973). Thus, at the time this case was appealed, it appeared that there was no authority to question the validity of the uniform jury instructions because they are made `mandatory' when the Supreme Court adopts them through a general order. Wilson, 116 N.M. at 795, 867 P.2d at 1177 (citing State v. Martin, 90 N.M. 524, 528, 565 P.2d 1041, 1045 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 636, 567 P.2d 485 (1977)). Wilson altered the Alexander doctrine, freeing the Court of Appeals to amend, modify, or abolish Uniform Jury Instructions that have not been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court on appeal. Wilson, 116 N.M. at 796, 867 P.2d at 1178. The only restriction is that [i]f there exists precedent from this Court that specifically addresses the validity of a [Uniform Jury Instruction], the Court of Appeals may not overrule that precedent nor alter or reject that instruction. Id. The ambiguities in the Uniform Jury Instructions addressed in this case have not been addressed by this Court. Under Wilson, this type of issue can be resolved in the future by the Court of Appeals.