court in Castrillo did not conduct inquiry into deliberations on any charge; therefore, there was no need for the court to analyze, and we do not believe it in that case analyzed whether, if it had inquired and determined a deadlock as to first degree murder, the court was required to continue its inquiry in regard to the jury’s deliberations on second degree murder. See Padilla v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2003-NMSC-011, ¶ 6, 133 N.M. 661, 68 P.3d 901 (indicating propriety of Court of Appeals distinguishing prior Supreme Court case when present case under consideration involves a different issue than the prior case or facts that distinguish the present case from the analysis in the prior case); Fernandez v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Ariz., 115 N.M. 622, 627, 857 P.2d 22, 27 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wenger, 1999-NMCA-092, ¶ 10, 127
holding that issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument  are waived if either authority or argument is lacking not just if both are lacking holding this court does not consider issues not supported by propositions of law authority or argument holding cases are not authority for propositions not considered holding that contract debts even if disputed are considered liquidated and tort claims are not holding that consequential damages are not to be considered