Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Norman Davis was convicted of possession of marijuana after New Mexico State Police consensually searched his greenhouse and seized 14 marijuana plants. That search was the result of “Operation Yerba Buena 2006,” conducted by a coordinated law enforcement effort that allegedly discovered marijuana plants growing on Davis’ property. The issue this case presented for the New Mexico Supreme Court’s review was whether that aerial surveillance, and the manner in which it was conducted, amounted to a warrantless search of Davis’ property. Concluding that his federal constitutional rights were violated in this instance, the Court reversed the opinion of the Court of Appeals which held to the contrary, and reversed Davis’ conviction. View "New Mexico v. Davis" on Justia Law

In this case, police officers made their arrest for shoplifting at the scene of the crime, without any prior opportunity to secure a warrant. Surveillance cameras at Sportsman’s Warehouse in Albuquerque caught defendant Ernest Paananen placing two flashlights under his jacket and then leaving the store without paying. Moments later, the store’s loss prevention team apprehended defendant and returned him to the store. The loss prevention team placed defendant in a back room, frisked him, and called the police. During the frisk, a loss prevention employee placed defendant’s possessions on the table, along with the stolen flashlights. The employee did not go through Defendant’s backpack. Albuquerque Police Department Officers Cole Knight and Andrew Hsu arrived at the store. Defendant was immediately handcuffed, and officers searched Defendant’s backpack and found hypodermic needles. When questioned about the needles, defendant admitted that he had tried to use drugs the day before but said he did not possess any drugs. While waiting for a copy of the surveillance video, Officer Knight searched through defendant’s possessions on the table and found a cigarette pack, and in looking inside the pack, discovered a substance believed to be heroin. Along with shoplifting, the State charged defendant with possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant sought to suppress all evidence seized at the store, arguing that the officers conducted an unreasonable, warrantless search. The Court of Appeals affirmed the suppression. The Supreme Court, after review, reversed the Court of Appeals, finding that though without a warrant, defendant's arrest was reasonable under the New Mexico Constitution. "The subsequent warrantless search of Defendant fits a judicially recognized exception to the warrant requirement and was therefore also constitutionally reasonable." View "New Mexico v. Paananen" on Justia Law

Defendant Donovan King and Justin Mark arrived at Kevin Lossiah’s apartment the morning of May 29, 2011. Initially, Lossiah’s neighbors saw Defendant and Mark outside the apartment. The neighbor later heard banging coming from Lossiah’s apartment and someone yelling. The neighbor called the police, and once police arrived, they discovered Lossiah severely beaten but still breathing. Officers called for paramedics and Lossiah was rushed to the hospital. Defendant was ultimately 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. Recently the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld Mark’s conviction for first-degree murder for his participation in Lossiah’s murder. Relying on "Santobello v. New York," (404 U.S. 257 (1971)), the New Mexico Supreme Court has previously held that a plea-bargained sentence must be fulfilled by the prosecution, and if not, will be enforced by the courts. In defendant's murder appeal, the Court applied that principle to the prosecution's promise to dismiss a tampering-with-evidence charge if defendant would locate and produce the murder weapon. Here, defendant produced the weapon, but the prosecutor did not drop the charge as promised and defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence. Accordingly, the Court reversed the tampering conviction. Affirming all remaining convictions, including first-degree murder, this case was remanded for resentencing. View "New Mexico v. King" on Justia Law

In 2009, the Governor appointed District Judge Sheri Raphaelson to fill a vacancy in Division V of the First Judicial District Court created when then-District Judge Tim Garcia was appointed to the New Mexico Court of Appeals, leaving an unexpired term of office. A year later, as required by Article VI, Section 35 of the New Mexico Constitution, Judge Raphaelson successfully ran in a partisan election to remain in office as Judge Garciaís successor. On March 11, 2014, Judge Raphaelson filed a declaration of candidacy to place her name on the ballot for retention in the 2014 general election in accordance with Article VI, Section 34 of the New Mexico Constitution and NMSA 1978, Section 1-8-26 (2013). In the general election, Judge Raphaelsonís fell short of the 57 percent votes necessary to retain the office as stipulated by Article VI, Section 33(A) of the New Mexico Constitution. Days after the 2014 general election, despite her unsuccessful retention election, Judge Raphaelson publically declared her intent to remain on the bench until January 1, 2017, not January 1, 2015. Judge Raphaelson contended for the first time that her six-year term of office had begun on January 1, 2011, after her successful partisan election, and that she had mistakenly stood for retention prematurely. Upon review of this matter, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a judge elected in a partisan election is subject to retention in the sixth year of the predecessor judge's term, and that by failing to win enough votes for retention, Judge Raphaelson lost her seat. "Any effort to remain in office beyond December 31, 2014 contravened the Constitution, justifying our writ of quo warranto." View "King v. Raphaelson" on Justia Law

Appellee Emily Kane ran for elective office while she was employed at the Albuquerque Fire Department (the AFD) as a captain. Article X, Section 3 of the Charter of the City of Albuquerque (1989), and the City of Albuquerque Personnel Rules and Regulations Section 311.3 (2001), prohibit city employees from holding elective office. Kane sought injunctive relief to allow her to hold elective office while retaining her employment with the AFD. She argued that the employment regulations of the City of Albuquerque (the City) violated: (1) the First and Fourth Amendments of the United States Constitution; (2) Article VII, Section 2 of the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) Section 10-7F-9 of the Hazardous Duty Officers' Employer-Employee Relations Act (the HDOA). The district court granted Kane the relief she sought, but the Supreme Court reversed. The Court found the City's employment regulations did not violate the First Amendment because they regulated conflicts of interest, and they were therefore rationally related to the legitimate government purpose of promoting administrative efficiency. In addition, the Court held these regulations did not violate Article VII, Section 2 because they constituted conditions of employment that did not add additional qualifications to elective public office. Finally, the City's employment regulations were not preempted by Section 10-7F-9 because personnel rules touched issues of local rather than general concern, and they were within the City's authority to promulgate. View "Kane v. City of Albuquerque" on Justia Law

In March 2007, Plaintiff Dara Hem brought suit in a Texas federal court after he was seriously injured in an accident. Hem was traveling through northern New Mexico when his Toyota truck separated from the U-Haul trailer it was towing, causing the truck to roll over several times. After treating Hem for his injuries, the University of New Mexico Hospital (UNMH) recorded a hospital lien for Hem's outstanding medical bills. The lien would attach to any future judgment or settlement he might procure from a lawsuit, pursuant to the Hospital Lien Act. Although Hem did not dispute the amount owed, UNMH agreed to compromise on the lien amount and accept a lesser amount as payment in full. In exchange, one of Hem's attorneys, Miller, agreed to give up his statutory priority over settlement funds already obtained from U-Haul and some anticipated settlement funds from Toyota, so UNMH would be paid first. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the agreement UNMH made to reduce the amount of a lien for medical services rendered violated Article IV, Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution. UNMH argued it had priority over settlement funds pursuant to the agreement between itself and Hem's initial attorney, Clay Miller. Hem's second attorney, Turner & Associates, P.A. (claimant in interpleader) argued that this agreement was unconstitutional. Therefore, Turner argued that it has a priority right to collect fees and costs out of the interpleaded settlement funds prior to the satisfaction of the hospital lien, pursuant to the Act. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that: (1) the first clause of Section 32 was correctly interpreted in State Investment and is strictly a limitation on the Legislature; and (2) Article IV, Section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution does not prohibit UNMH from agreeing to compromise the amount owed by a patient-debtor. View "Hem v. Toyota Motor Corp." on Justia Law

This appeal centered on the second of two qui tam actions filed by former New Mexico Education Retirement Board ("ERB") Chief Investment Officer Frank Foy and his wife Suzanne ("Foys"), attacking the management of the investment portfolios of the ERB and of the New Mexico State Investment Council ("SIC"). The Foys "allege that Defendants, who include Wall Street firms and investment advisors, as well as high-ranking state officials, executed fraudulent schemes that led to the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars at the expense of the [SIC] and the [ERB]. Specifically, the issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether the retroactive application of the Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 44-9-1 to -14 (2007) ("FATA") violated the Ex Post Facto Clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that FATA was constitutional. The treble damages under FATA were predominantly compensatory and could be applied retroactively to conduct that occurred prior to its effective date. The Court declined to resolve the issue of whether the civil penalties awarded under FATA were punitive and violated ex post facto principles until there was a definitive amount awarded. View "New Mexico ex rel. Foy v. Austin Capital Mgmt., Ltd." on Justia Law

Defendant-respondent Aide Sanchez was at the Santa Teresa port of entry attempting to enter the United States from Mexico, when Border Patrol agents seized marijuana from her van. In "New Mexico v. Cardenas-Alvarez," (25 P.3d 225), the New Mexico Supreme Court held that “the New Mexico Constitution and laws apply to evidence seized by federal 8 agents at a border patrol checkpoint [located] sixty miles within the State of New Mexico [(an interior fixed checkpoint)] when that evidence is proffered in state court.” The Court also held that Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution “demands that after a Border Patrol agent has asked about a motorist’s citizenship and immigration status, and has reviewed the motorist’s documents, any further detention requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.” Sanchez successfully moved to suppress the evidence seized from her van, arguing that: (1) Cardenas-Alvarez applied at the international border; and (2) seizure of the marijuana violated the New Mexico Constitution because the Border Patrol agents did not have a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to continue to detain her once they had established her citizenship and immigration status. After review, the Supreme Court held that Article II, Section 10 did not afford greater protections at an international border checkpoint because unlike motorists who are stopped at interior border checkpoints, all motorists stopped at international fixed checkpoints are known to be international travelers who are not entitled to the heightened privacy expectations enjoyed by domestic travelers. The Court reversed the district court’s order suppressing the evidence in this case and remanded for further proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

Officer Glen Gutierrez, on duty as a full-time salaried police officer of the Pueblo of Pojoaque and also commissioned as a Santa Fe County deputy sheriff, was patrolling a portion of U.S. Highway 84/285 located within the exterior boundary of the Pojoaque Pueblo. Officer Gutierrez observed Jose Loya making a dangerous lane change and pulled Loya over. Once stopped, Officer Gutierrez asked Loya to step out of his vehicle and informed Loya that he was under arrest for reckless driving in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-113 (1987), a state law. Officer Gutierrez placed Loya in the back of his patrol vehicle and transported Loya to the Pojoaque Tribal Police Department for processing. Loya, a non-Indian, was not subject to prosecution for violation of tribal law, so he was transported from the Pueblo to the Santa Fe County Adult Detention Center where he was incarcerated. Ultimately, Officer Gutierrez prosecuted Loya for reckless driving in Santa Fe County Magistrate Court. The issue this case presented for the New Mexico Supreme Court's review centered on a a county’s legal obligation when a non-Indian, arrested by a tribal officer and prosecuted in state court for state traffic offenses, sues the arresting tribal officer for federal civil rights violations. Specifically, the issue the Court identified in this case was when the county has an obligation under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, to provide that tribal police officer with a legal defense in the federal civil rights action. The district court as well as the Court of Appeals found no such legal duty, in part because it concluded that the tribal officer was not a state public employee as defined in the NMTCA. The Supreme Court held the opposite, finding clear evidence in the text and purpose of the NMTCA requiring the county to defend the tribal officer, duly commissioned to act as a deputy county sheriff, under these circumstances. View "Loya v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

The New Mexico Supreme Court previously issued an opinion after defendant Adriana Cabezuela's first trial in which a jury convicted her of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of her eight-month-old daughter Mariana Barraza. After the Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, Defendant was again tried and convicted of the same offense and sentenced to life. On direct appeal, Defendant argued: (1) the district court erred by not holding a presentencing hearing to consider mitigation evidence before imposing a life sentence; (2) the evidence was not sufficient to support her conviction; (3) a forensic pathologist's trial testimony violated Defendant's constitutional right to confrontation; (4) the district court improperly instructed the jury by giving UJI 14-610 NMRA's (1993, withdrawn 2015) definition of intent; and (5) Defendant's trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. After review, the Supreme Court decided in the State's favor with respect to issues (2) through (4). With respect to issue (1), the Court concluded that the district court should have heard evidence in mitigation before imposing sentence. The case was remanded for resentencing. Regarding (5), the Court concluded Defendant's argument was more appropriate for a habeas corpus proceeding. View "New Mexico v. Cabezuela" on Justia Law