Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2011, Norman Benally was driving a black Cadillac Escalade with a nonoperating headlight. A police officer stopped Benally, and during the stop, he smelled marijuana. The officer asked for consent to search the vehicle, but Benally declined. Officer Largo called for the assistance of the K-9 patrol unit. (NM)K-9 Tiko alerted the officers to the presence of controlled substances. Shortly thereafter, Danielle Benally, who was the registered owner of the vehicle, arrived at the scene. She also refused consent to the officers’ search of the vehicle. The vehicle was then seized and towed to the Police Department’s gated and locked impound lot. There, evidence tape was placed on the vehicle and sealed so that no one but the police officers could enter it. Thereafter, the State sought a warrant to search the vehicle for drugs, drug paraphernalia, and money linked to drug transactions. A warrant was issued, and the following day, law enforcement agents searched the vehicle. They found close to 600 grams of marijuana; a digital scale; Benally’s wallet (with money in it), his driver’s license, and his social security cards; and Danielle Benally’s wallet (which also had money in it), credit cards, and EBT cards. In total, law enforcement officials discovered $1295 during the search of the vehicle. The State ultimately filed a criminal complaint against Benally, charging him with distribution of marijuana, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. At the same time, the State filed a complaint for the forfeiture of the $1295, alleged to be drug proceeds. Benally moved to dismiss the forfeiture complaint as untimely, arguing that the forfeiture complaint was filed more than thirty days after police officers seized and sealed the vehicle containing the currency. The trial court held a hearing on the motion and later dismissed the forfeiture complaint as untimely. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed: because the 2002-version of the applicable seizure statute controlled, and because the officers “ma[de] a seizure” of the money when they seized the vehicle, it was error for the trial court to dismiss as untimely. View "New Mexico v. Benally" on Justia Law

Defendant Dorall Smith appealed his convictions for first-degree murder and criminal damage to property. Defendant raised ten issues as grounds for appeal: (1) there was insufficient evidence of deliberate intent to support a conviction for first-degree murder; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing the State to use recalculated DNA results that were not disclosed to Defendant until the eve of trial, necessitating that defense counsel retain its own expert in the middle of trial to analyze the DNA evidence; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by ordering defense counsel to obtain a DNA expert midtrial, and then requiring that expert to expedite his analysis; (4) the trial court improperly admitted autopsy photographs and the testimony of a supervising pathologist in violation of the constitutional right to confrontation; (5) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing evidence of prior bad acts contrary to its previous order in limine; (6) the trial court abused its discretion by joining Defendant’s two cases; (7) a three-year delay amounted to a violation of Defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial; (8) Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel; (9) the trial court abused its discretion by denying Defendant’s motions for mistrial; and (10) his convictions should be reversed based on a theory of cumulative error in light of the all the issues he raises. The Supreme Court, after review, rejected all of defendant's claims on appeal and affirmed his convictions. View "New Mexico v. Smith" on Justia Law

There was only one judge on the Tenth Judicial District Court which had jurisdiction over the counties of Quay, DeBaca, and Harding. In 2008, Albert J. Mitchell, Jr. won a contested election for Tenth Judicial District judge against Judge Donald Schutte. Pursuant to 19 Article VI, Section 33 of the New Mexico Constitution, Judge Mitchell ran for retention in the 2014 general election. Prior to the retention election, the Judicial Performance Evaluation Commission evaluated Judge Mitchell and recommended that voters retain him in the general election. Despite the Commission’s recommendation, Judge Mitchell was not retained, failing to garner at least fifty-seven percent of the votes. A district court judges nominating committee was convened to solicit and evaluate applicants to fill Judge Mitchell’s impending vacancy. Before the nominating committee could meet, Petitioner Pamela Clark unsuccessfully tried to prevent to nominating committee from considering Judge Mitchell's application by petitioning the New Mexico Supreme Court. The nominating committee ultimately submitted the names of both applicants to the governor for consideration. Governor Susana Martinez appointed Judge Mitchell to the vacancy. This case called upon the New Mexico Supreme Court to interpret the 1988 amendments to the New Mexico Constitution governing judicial selection. The question before the Court was whether Article VI, Section 33 prohibited a district judge who lost a nonpartisan retention election from being appointed to fill the resulting vacancy created by that judge’s nonretention. The Court held that the New Mexico Constitution did not prohibit a judicial nominating commission from considering and nominating, or the governor from appointing, an otherwise qualified judicial applicant to fill a vacant judicial office based on the judicial applicant’s nonretention in the immediately preceding election. "We recognize that our holding may seem counterintuitive at first glance. However, our holding is governed by our Constitution’s provisions governing judicial succession, not retention." View "Clark v. Mitchell" on Justia Law

Following a second trial, Defendant Danny Surratt was convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor. Defendant appealed his conviction, claiming the district attorney serving as special prosecutor at the second trial lacked the authority to prosecute the case because his appointment by the first special prosecutor, also a district attorney, was invalid. Defendant maintained that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. The Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant and reversed his conviction, effectively remanding the case for a third trial. After its review, the Supreme Court held that a properly appointed special prosecutor is given all the authority and duties of the appointing district attorney to prosecute the case for which that special prosecutor was appointed, including the authority to name another special prosecutor if unable to proceed for an ethical reason or other good cause. View "New Mexico v. Surratt" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Jeremy Nichols of child abuse resulting in death or great bodily harm, finding him guilty on a theory of negligently permitting medical neglect of his six-month-old son Kaden Nichols that allegedly resulted in the child’s death. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the conviction was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, and as such, reversed the conviction and dismissed the charge. View "New Mexico v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Respondent Nancy Garduno was ineligible for unemployment benefits because her employer terminated her for misconduct connected with her employment. The Cabinet Secretary of the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions ordered respondent to repay $11,256 in overpaid unemployment benefits. A majority of the Court of Appeals held that due process precluded the Department from collecting the overpaid unemployment benefits from respondent where she received benefits payments during the ongoing appeals process because she was unaware of her employer’s appeal for over 100 days. The Supreme Court reversed, however, finding that respondent’s procedural due process rights were not violated because the Department provided respondent with constitutionally adequate procedural protections prior to terminating her benefits and ordering her to reimburse the Department for the overpaid benefits. View "N.M. Dep't of Workforce Solutions v. Garduno" on Justia Law

The New Mexico Department of Public Education’s (Department) Instructional Material Bureau purchases non-religious instructional materials selected by public or private schools, with funds appropriated by the Legislature and earmarked for the schools, and lends these materials to qualified students who attend public or private schools. The question this case presented for the New Mexico Supreme Court’s review centered on whether the provision of books to students who attend private schools violated Article XII, Section 3. The Court concluded that the plain meaning and history of Article XII, Section 3 forbade the provision of books for use by students atte View "Moses v. Skandera" on Justia Law

Four years and three months after Defendant Mark Serros was arrested and charged with sexually abusing his nephew, the district court dismissed his case, concluding that his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution had been violated. Among other things, the district court found that Defendant had suffered extreme prejudice as a result of the length and circumstances of his detention. A divided Court of Appeals reversed. The majority reasoned that the delay in bringing Defendant to trial could not be attributed to the State, faulting Defendant because he had agreed to numerous requests to extend the time for commencing trial and had twice requested new counsel. The dissent concluded that the delays resulted primarily from the “negligence and disregard” of Defendant’s attorneys and that, whether or not the State was at fault, Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed: the Court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the length and circumstances of Defendant’s pre-trial incarceration resulted in extreme prejudice. The Court therefore hold that dismissal was appropriate because Defendant did not cause or acquiesce in the numerous delays in his case and because the State failed in its obligation to bring Defendant’s case to trial. View "New Mexico v. Serros" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with and convicted of first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and tampering with evidence. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment plus 18 years. Relying on “Santobello v. New York,” (404 U.S. 257 (1971)), the New Mexico Supreme Court held previously that a plea-bargained sentence must be fulfilled by the prosecution, and if not, will be enforced by the courts. In this first-degree murder appeal, the Court applied that principle to a prosecutorial promise to dismiss defendant’s tampering-with-evidence charge if the defendant would locate and produce the murder weapon. Defendant indeed produced the weapon, but the prosecutor did not drop the charge as promised and defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the tampering conviction. Defendant’s remaining convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for resentencing. View "New Mexico v. King" on Justia Law

The County Assessor for Eddy County sought to use money in a county property valuation fund (as established by the Legislature in 1986) to contract with a private company for technical assistance in locating and valuing oil and gas property. The County Commission for Eddy County refused to approve the proposed plan because it believed that a contract to pay private, independent contractors to assist the County Assessor in the performance of the Assessor’s statutory duties exceeded the Commission’s lawful authority. The Supreme Court was persuaded that the County Commission did have such authority under law, and that the contract under consideration here would not have exceed that authority or be otherwise ultra vires. The district court having previously issued a declaratory judgment to that same effect, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Robinson v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Cty. of Eddy" on Justia Law