N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-046
Formal exceptions to rulings or orders of the court are unnecessary. It is sufficient that a party, at the time the ruling or order of the court is made or sought, makes known to the court the action which he desires the court to take or his objection to the action of the court and his grounds therefor; and if a party has no opportunity to object to a ruling or order at the time it is made the absence of an objection does not thereafter prejudice him. It shall not be necessary to file a motion for a new trial in order to preserve for review errors called to the attention of the trial court under this rule.
This rule applies to all causes, whether tried before a jury or to the court without a jury.
N.M. R. Civ. P. Dist. Ct. 1-046
For preserving errors in instructions, see Rule 1-051 NMRA. For preserving errors in rulings on evidence, see Rule 11-103 NMRA. For preserving scope of review, see Rule 12-216 NMRA. Compiler's notes. - This rule is deemed to have superseded 105-830, C.S. 1929, which provided when exceptions were unnecessary. Purpose of rule. - The principal purpose of the rule requiring a party to preserve error in the trial court of issues sought to be asserted on appeal is to alert the mind of the trial judge to the claimed error and to accord the trial court an opportunity to correct the matter. Madrid v. Roybal, 1991-NMCA-068, 112 N.M. 354, 815 P.2d 650. Formal exceptions, but not objections, have been dispensed with. - Laws 1897, ch. 73, §119 (105-830, C.S. 1929), dispensed with formal exception, but in no sense dispensed with objection in order to preserve the error complained of, and such objection had to be preserved according to the forms of law to be available in the supreme court. Blacklock v. Fox, 1919-NMSC-040, 25 N.M. 391, 183 P. 402; Neher v. Armijo, 1901-NMSC-015, 11 N.M. 67, 66 P. 517. The trial court must be clearly alerted to a claimed nonjurisdictional error to preserve it for appeal. Barnett v. Cal M, Inc., 1968-NMSC-159, 79 N.M. 553, 445 P.2d 974. If plaintiffs felt they were being prejudiced by the conduct of the court in submitting the forms of verdicts to the jury, it was their duty to call such to the attention of the trial court so that the court might have corrected or avoided the claimed error. Scott v. Brown, 1966-NMSC-135, 76 N.M. 501, 416 P.2d 516. The purpose of any objection during the trial of a case is to alert the mind of the judge to the claimed error so that he may correct it. Lovato v. Hicks, 1965-NMSC-004, 74 N.M. 733, 398 P.2d 59 (objection to interrogatories to jury held not sufficient). Exceptions taken during the trial to rulings of the court should specify wherein counsel contend the court erred. Territory v. Guillen, 1901-NMSC-023, 11 N.M. 194, 66 P. 527. Nonjurisdictional questions not so presented cannot be raised on appeal. - The mind of the trial court must be clearly alerted to a claimed nonjurisdictional error in order to preserve it for appeal. Questions not so presented to the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. Shelley v. Norris, 1963-NMSC-193, 73 N.M. 148, 386 P.2d 243. While matters of fundamental error may be first raised on appeal, such matters as sufficiency of evidence to authorized submission of case to jury or to support the verdict are to be raised by appropriate objections at the trial. State v. Nuttal, 1947-NMSC-036, 51 N.M. 196, 181 P.2d 808; see now Rule 11-103, R. Evid. It is a fundamental rule of appellate practice and procedure that an appellate court will consider only such questions as were raised in the court below. Irick v. Elkins, 1933-NMSC-106, 38 N.M. 113, 28 P.2d 657; State ex rel. Baca v. Board of Comm'rs, 1916-NMSC-091, 22 N.M. 502, 165 P. 213. An appellate court will not reverse on some ground not particularized at the trial. Lovato v. Hicks, 1965-NMSC-004, 74 N.M. 733, 398 P.2d 59. Where no objection to form of injunction was made at trial, the matter could not be raised on appeal. Holloway v. Evans, 1951-NMSC-082, 55 N.M. 601, 238 P.2d 457. Findings must be written and specific for appeal. - In order to obtain a review of a judgment rendered in a case tried by the court without a jury, and to question the conclusions of the court upon the facts and the law, there must be written specific findings, both of law and fact, and exceptions must be taken thereto. Harris & Maldonado v. Sperry, 1930-NMSC-061, 35 N.M. 52, 290 P. 1022 (decided under former law). Acceptance of fact-findings not required. - Fact-findings of a trial court in favor of plaintiff are not required to be accepted as facts on appeal, because of absence of exception or objection, where no opportunity to except has been given defendant, and he requested contrary findings in every essential particular covered by the findings, and challenged the sufficiency of the evidence. N.H. Ranch Co. v. Gann, 1938-NMSC-042, 42 N.M. 530, 82 P.2d 632 (decided under former law). No review if finding not requested. - Under Rule 52 (see now Rule 1-052 NMRA) the trial court, when sitting without a jury, is required to make findings of fact. This is true even though a motion is sustained at the close of plaintiff's case. Notwithstanding the fact that the rule is stated in mandatory language directed to the court, a party who has not requested the court to make findings on any given point is not in position to obtain a review of the evidence on such point in this court. DesGeorges v. Grainger, 1966-NMSC-013, 76 N.M. 52, 412 P.2d 6; see also Duran v. Montoya, 1952-NMSC-025, 56 N.M. 198, 242 P.2d 492. Where supreme court has neither a bill of exceptions nor requested findings, it is in no position to overturn trial court's findings. Garcia v. Garcia, 1970-NMSC-035, 81 N.M. 277, 466 P.2d 554; see also Alexander Hamilton Inst. v. Smith, 1930-NMSC-051, 35 N.M. 30, 289 P. 596 (decided under former law). Where issue was neither specifically requested nor passed upon by the trial court, it may not be urged for the first time on appeal. Thomas v. Barber's Super Mkts., Inc., 1964-NMSC-251, 74 N.M. 720, 398 P.2d 51. A party could not obtain a review of the evidence where he failed to make requested findings or file exceptions. Owensby v. Nesbitt, 1956-NMSC-024, 61 N.M. 3, 293 P.2d 652. Where workmen's compensation proceeding's findings were not objected to and no requested findings were timely made under Rule 52 (see now Rule 1-052 NMRA), the court's findings could not be attacked. Gillit v. Theatre Enters., Inc., 1962-NMSC-141, 71 N.M. 31, 375 P.2d 580. If court makes requested finding. - Plaintiff will not be permitted to complain on appeal because the trial court made the findings that he requested. Platero v. Jones, 1971-NMCA-154, 83 N.M. 261, 490 P.2d 1234. Failure to except to findings and conclusions in moving for directed verdict. - In determining whether a trial court has erred in denying a motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the evidence, it is the applicable law which is controlling, and not what the trial court announces the law to be in its findings and conclusions. An appellate court must ascertain for itself what the applicable law is, whether its findings and conclusions were excepted to or not. A proper motion for a directed verdict and its denial will always preserve for review the question whether under the law truly applicable to the case there was an adequate evidentiary basis for submission to the jury. Sands v. American G.I. Forum of N.M., Inc., 1982-NMCA-044, 97 N.M. 625, 642 P.2d 611. General exception limited in scope. - Reviewing court need not examine the evidence to decide whether it supports the findings when only a general exception has been taken to the findings. Clouser v. Clouser, 1942-NMSC-020, 46 N.M. 220, 126 P.2d 289 (decided under former law). General conclusion on mixed question of fact and law cannot be reviewed, in absence of specific exceptions. De Lost v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 1927-NMSC-077, 33 N.M. 15, 261 P. 811 (decided under former law). Objections should be made in time for trial court to rule. - Objections to arguments of counsel should be made in time for the trial court to rule on them and to correct them, where it is possible to correct them by a cautionary instruction before the jury retires. McCauley v. Ray, 1968-NMSC-194, 80 N.M. 171, 453 P.2d 192. Where no opportunity given to take exceptions. - Where the only exceptions sought to be taken are formal, and no exceptions were taken at the trial because no opportunity was given, the complaining party is not required to move to set aside the judgment for irregularities and then except, in view of Laws 1897, ch. 73, §119 (105-830, 1929 Comp.). N.H. Ranch Co. v. Gann, 1938-NMSC-042, 42 N.M. 530, 82 P.2d 632. Question properly preserved. - Plaintiff's timely request to the court concerning "the action which he desired the court to take", in regard to a note submitted to the court by the jury, complied with the requirement of this rule. Madrid v. Roybal, 1991-NMCA-068, 112 N.M. 354, 815 P.2d 650. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - Trial court's allowance of a general exception to adverse rulings as obviating necessity of specific exceptions, 102 A.L.R. 209. Sufficiency of general objection or exception to evidence admitted without qualification, which was competent against one or more parties, but not all, 106 A.L.R. 467. Necessity of renewal of objection to evidence admitted conditionally, 88 A.L.R.2d 12. When will federal court of appeals review issue raised by party for first time on appeal where legal developments after trial effect issue, 76 A.L.R. Fed. 522. Sufficiency in federal court of motion in limine to preserve for appeal objection to evidence absent contemporary objection at trial, 76 A.L.R. Fed. 619. 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§95, 197.