admitted. Finally, with regard to the alleged Golden Rule arguments, the trial court warned Plaintiffs counsel to use general terms at the bench conference and, after the admonishment, there were no further objections by Defendant. {29} We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial or Defendant’s motion for a new trial. II. PUNITIVE DAMAGES AWARD {30} The evidence was clearly sufficient for the jury to conclude that the conduct of Defendant was reckless and warranted an award of punitive damages, and Defendant does not argue otherwise. Defendant’s argument is that the amount of punitive damages award is grossly excessive and therefore unconstitutional. See Bogle v. Summit Inv. Co., 2005-NMCA-024, ¶ 33, 137 N.M. 80, 107 P.3d 520 (<HOLDING>). {31} In considering on appeal whether a
holding the exclusion did not violate the equal protection clause of the wyoming constitution or the fourteenth amendment to the united states constitution holding references to a defendants lack of remorse violate the fifth eighth and fourteenth amendments recognizing that as stated in cooper industries v leatherman tool group inc 532 us 424 43334 121 sct 1678 149 led2d 674 2001 punitive damage awards that are grossly excessive violate the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution holding that the execution of individuals who were under 18 years of age at the time they committed capital crimes violates the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the united states constitution holding that deference  is warranted only when it appears that congress delegated authority to the agency generally to make rules carrying the force of law and that the agency interpretation claiming deference was promulgated in the exercise of that authority and discussing united states v mead corp 533 us 218 22627 121 sct 2164 150 led2d 292 2001 and chevron usa inc v natural res def council inc 467 us 837 84245 104 sct 2778 81 led2d 694 1984