Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Attorney Alan Maestas was found guilty of direct punitive contempt for refusing to proceed to trial despite the district court’s orders and warnings. As a sanction, the district court imposed a ten-day jail sentence, suspended in full, and ordered Maestas to pay a $1,000 fine to the New Mexico State Bar Foundation. The contempt finding and sanction arose from Maestas’s conduct in the presence of the court, which the court determined warranted punitive measures.The New Mexico Court of Appeals reviewed the district court’s contempt finding and affirmed it, but found that the initial sanction imposed was an abuse of discretion. On remand, the district court imposed the revised sanction described above. Subsequently, the Court of Appeals certified to the Supreme Court of New Mexico the question of whether a contempt fine ordered payable to a third party is permitted by statute and the New Mexico Constitution.The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that a fine payable to a third party is permitted under the judiciary’s inherent and broad contempt power and is constitutional. The Court clarified that only fees collected by the judicial department, not fines merely imposed, are subject to the limitations of Article VI, Section 30 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Court distinguished between “fees” and “fines,” finding that the constitutional provision applies only to fees collected, not to punitive contempt fines directed to third parties. The Court also found no relevant legislative constraint on the type of fine imposed in this case. The matter was remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of other issues raised on appeal. View "State v. Maestas" on Justia Law

Two individuals, Mario Cabral and Vanessa Mora, were shot and killed in their home in March 2018. The defendant, who had a child with Cabral and was involved in a contentious custody dispute, was accused of hiring a hitman, Edward Alonso, to kill Cabral. Alonso testified that the defendant offered him money and provided details about Cabral’s residence, but he ultimately did not carry out the murder. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence, including testimony about the defendant’s acquisition of a .45-caliber gun, photographs of Cabral’s home found on her phone, and statements suggesting her boyfriend, Flores, might commit the murder if Alonso did not. The defendant denied involvement, but the jury convicted her of first-degree murder of Cabral, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and criminal solicitation of first-degree murder.The case was tried in the District Court of Doña Ana County, where the defendant objected to the prosecution’s cross-examination about her six-month-old child’s positive methamphetamine test, arguing lack of notice and relevance. The district court allowed limited questioning on this topic. The jury acquitted the defendant of Mora’s murder but convicted her on the other charges.On direct appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reviewed the evidentiary ruling and found that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the inquiry into the child’s drug test, as it was inadmissible under the relevant evidence rules and not justified as rebuttal character evidence. The error was deemed not harmless, given its impact on the defendant’s credibility. The Supreme Court reversed all convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also held that the convictions for conspiracy and solicitation did not violate double jeopardy and that sufficient evidence supported the murder conviction. Additionally, the court emphasized the public’s First Amendment right to access criminal trials, criticizing the district court’s prohibition of notetaking by observers. View "State v. Cardenas" on Justia Law

A deadly shooting occurred at a house party in Las Cruces, New Mexico, in July 2021. During a chaotic altercation, multiple gunshots were fired, resulting in the death of Nicodemus Gonzales and damage to a vehicle driven by Jayissa Borrunda. Eyewitnesses described seeing the defendant and his cousin brandishing guns with laser sights. Forensic evidence was inconclusive as to which weapon caused the fatal injury. The defendant, who was seventeen at the time, was charged as a Serious Youthful Offender with first-degree (willful and deliberate) murder and other related offenses.The District Court of Doña Ana County acquitted the defendant of first-degree (willful and deliberate) murder but allowed the case to proceed to the jury on first-degree felony murder, predicated on aggravated assault, as well as other charges. The jury convicted the defendant of first-degree felony murder (as an accomplice to aggravated assault), aggravated assault, two counts of conspiracy, and shooting at a motor vehicle. The court imposed a thirty-year sentence for felony murder, an enhanced sentence for aggravated assault, and additional concurrent sentences for the other convictions.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reviewed the case. It held that aggravated assault is a noncollateral felony and cannot serve as the predicate for felony murder; therefore, the defendant’s felony murder conviction must be vacated as a legal nullity. The Court further held that double jeopardy does not bar retrial for felony murder or its lesser-included offenses when a conviction is reversed for a nonexistent crime, as this constitutes trial error rather than an acquittal. The Court also vacated one conspiracy conviction for lack of evidentiary support and reversed the four-year firearm enhancement as unauthorized by statute. The remaining convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. View "State v. Revels" on Justia Law

A group of New Mexico residents filed lawsuits against several out-of-state law firms, alleging that these firms conspired with tobacco companies and industry organizations to mislead the public about the dangers of cigarette smoking, resulting in personal injuries. The law firms, based in Missouri, the District of Columbia, and North Carolina, had no significant business or physical presence in New Mexico. The plaintiffs argued that the law firms’ participation in a nationwide civil conspiracy, which included acts affecting New Mexico, established grounds for the state’s courts to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over them.The First Judicial District Court denied the law firms’ motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on a New Mexico Court of Appeals decision that recognized “conspiracy jurisdiction” as a valid basis for specific personal jurisdiction. The district court found that the plaintiffs had shown the law firms participated in a conspiracy that “reached into New Mexico,” but did not make detailed factual findings. The law firms then petitioned the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico for writs of prohibition to prevent the district court from exercising jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that conspiracy jurisdiction is constitutional if it is limited to situations where a defendant knowingly and actively participates in a civil conspiracy targeting the forum state, with knowledge that co-conspirators would commit acts in or aimed at that state. However, the Court found that the plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing that the law firms either participated in such a conspiracy or knew of acts in furtherance of the conspiracy that created minimum contacts with New Mexico. As a result, the Court directed that the law firms be dismissed from the lawsuits. View "Shook v. Wilson" on Justia Law

A woman who served as the co-leader of a religious group in rural New Mexico was charged with multiple crimes after a twelve-year-old child, E.M., died at the group’s compound. The woman exercised strict control over the group’s members and limited their access to outside medical care. E.M. became seriously ill, was denied food as punishment, and ultimately died after his condition worsened. The child’s death was not reported to authorities until two years later, when other group members alerted police. An autopsy determined the cause of death was a probable infectious disease, but the exact cause could not be identified due to decomposition.The woman was initially indicted on several charges involving two children. The charges relating to another child, M.G., were severed, and she was convicted by a jury on those counts, receiving a 72-year sentence. Shortly after, she entered a plea agreement on the E.M.-related charges, including child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, and was sentenced to 18 years to run concurrently. Later, the M.G.-related convictions were set aside due to a Brady violation, and those charges were dismissed. The woman then filed a habeas petition seeking to vacate her plea in the E.M. case, arguing actual innocence, among other grounds. The district court rejected most claims but granted relief on actual innocence, finding her conduct did not legally constitute great bodily harm.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that a defendant convicted by plea agreement may assert a freestanding claim of actual innocence, applying the same clear and convincing evidence standard as for convictions after trial. However, the Court found that the district court’s determination of actual innocence was not supported by substantial evidence, as no new affirmative evidence was presented and the district court’s own findings implicated the defendant in the crime. The Supreme Court reversed the grant of habeas relief and remanded the case. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

In 2016, the defendant, an attorney, began representing John Emry in his estate planning. Emry's neighbor and friend, the plaintiff, assisted Emry and communicated with the defendant on Emry's behalf. The defendant prepared documents designating the plaintiff as Emry's attorney-in-fact. Emry instructed the plaintiff to sign documents at a bank, making the plaintiff the beneficiary of a significant account. The defendant did not respond to the plaintiff's email seeking clarification about the beneficiary designation. Upon Emry's death, the bank refused to honor the designation, leading to a legal dispute and financial loss for the plaintiff, who then sued the defendant for legal malpractice.The district court granted the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that an alleged violation of a Rule of Professional Conduct does not create a duty to a non-client for civil liability purposes. The plaintiff sought reversal, arguing that the rule, supported by expert testimony, should establish the standard of care for a lawyer's obligation to a non-client.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the Rules of Professional Conduct do not create a legal duty to non-clients. The court emphasized that duty is determined by policy considerations and is a question of law for the court to decide. The court also reaffirmed that while the Rules of Professional Conduct can guide the standard of care, they do not establish a duty. The court directed the Uniform Jury Instructions-Civil Committee to revise UJI 13-2411 to reflect this clarification. View "Waterbury v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. (SEC), a rural electric cooperative, proposed a rate increase of approximately $1.25 million or 5.06% from its 2017 test year. SEC also sought to reallocate revenue collections among its customer classes and redesign several rates, including adding a $5.00 per month "Minimum Use Charge" for low-usage accounts. Several SEC members filed protests, leading the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (Commission) to review the proposed rates. The Commission found just cause for review and held an evidentiary hearing.The Hearing Examiner recommended denying SEC's proposed rate increase, finding that SEC did not need increased revenue to maintain financial integrity. The Examiner suggested using the Operating Times Interest Earned Ratio (OTIER) to evaluate SEC's revenue needs, concluding that SEC's current OTIER was within an acceptable range. The Examiner also recommended adjustments to SEC's proposed revenue reallocation and rate design to avoid rate shock and ensure gradual movement towards full cost of service contribution for each customer class. The Commission adopted the Hearing Examiner's recommendations in full.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Commission's order. The Court held that the Commission has plenary authority to set just and reasonable rates for rural electric cooperatives once its jurisdiction is invoked under Section 62-8-7(H) of the Public Utility Act. The Court found that the Commission's decision to deny SEC's proposed revenue increase was lawful, reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence. The Commission's reallocation of revenue collections and rate design decisions were also upheld as lawful, reasonable, and supported by substantial evidence. The Court concluded that SEC had not shown the Commission's order to be unlawful or unreasonable. View "Socorro Electric Cooperative, Inc. v. New Mexico Regulation Commission" on Justia Law

The case involves Julianna Pauline Montano, who was indicted for multiple charges, including DWI homicide, following a tragic accident. Montano pleaded guilty to DWI homicide, and the other charges were dismissed. The district court classified her offense as a serious violent offense under the Earned Meritorious Deductions Act (EMDA), despite the statute's plain language categorizing DWI homicide as a nonviolent offense. The court reasoned that the omission of DWI homicide from the list of serious violent offenses in the EMDA was likely a legislative oversight and an absurdity.The Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the district court's decision, agreeing with Montano that the plain language of the EMDA did not classify DWI homicide as a serious violent offense. The appellate court held that the statute's clear and unambiguous language should be followed.The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in reclassifying DWI homicide as a serious violent offense under the EMDA. The court emphasized that the plain language of the EMDA should be followed and that the absurdity doctrine did not apply in this case. The court concluded that the Legislature's decision to classify DWI homicide as a nonviolent offense was not absurd and deferred to the separation of powers doctrine, stating that it is the Legislature's prerogative to amend the statute if necessary. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for amendment of the judgment and sentence in accordance with its opinion. View "State v. Montano" on Justia Law

Maile Soon and Jeannine Kammann were married when Soon conceived twins through assisted reproduction. Kammann was actively involved in the prenatal care and visited the twins after birth. However, the relationship deteriorated, and Soon moved out and filed for divorce. Despite the separation, Kammann continued to support the twins. Soon later sought to dismiss Kammann’s parentage claim, arguing that Kammann lacked standing because she was not genetically related to the twins.The district court ruled in favor of Soon, concluding that Kammann’s admission of not being the genetic parent rebutted the presumption of parentage. Kammann appealed, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, holding that Kammann’s statements alone were insufficient to rebut the presumption of parentage.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), the presumption of parentage for a spouse when a child is born during a marriage can only be rebutted by admissible genetic testing results. The court emphasized that the best interest of the child is paramount and that genetic testing must be conducted with the consent of both parties or by court order. Since no genetic testing was conducted or admitted, Kammann’s presumption of parentage remained unrebutted. Therefore, Kammann was declared a legal parent of the twins. View "Soon v. Kammann" on Justia Law

Kenneth and Kathy Zangara defaulted on a $2.3 million loan secured by a mortgage on their home. Bank of America (BOA), the original lender, filed a foreclosure action in 2011, which was dismissed in 2013 for lack of prosecution. BOA later sold the note to LSF9 Master Participation Trust (the Trust). The Trust filed a foreclosure action in 2018, which was dismissed for lack of standing. The Trust then filed a second foreclosure action, invoking New Mexico’s six-month savings statute.The district court dismissed the Trust’s second foreclosure action, interpreting the savings statute as inapplicable because the initial foreclosure was deemed a "nullity." The Trust appealed, and the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Trust, concluding that a dismissal for lack of standing does not fall within the negligence in prosecution exception to the savings statute.The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the case and clarified the meaning of "negligence in its prosecution" under the savings statute. The Court held that this phrase is equivalent to a dismissal for failure to prosecute. The Court rejected previous interpretations that extended the negligence in prosecution exception to other circumstances. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the Trust’s first foreclosure action’s dismissal for lack of standing did not constitute negligence in prosecution, allowing the Trust to benefit from the savings statute. The Court overruled prior cases that were inconsistent with this interpretation. View "Zangara v. LSF9 Master Participation Trust" on Justia Law