Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries
Articles Posted in Constitutional Law
New Mexico v. Baca
Defendant Abraham Baca was arrested by Sergeant Martin Trujillo for aggravated DWI and driving left of center of a roadway. The State filed a criminal complaint against Defendant in Magistrate Court. While the magistrate court proceedings were not recorded, what did appear in the record was that on the day of trial, the magistrate judge entered a written order dismissing the case with prejudice upon motion of the defense. The Trial Order was entered on a standardized court form that contained, among other options, fields for recording the magistrate's determination of guilty or not guilty, but these fields were left completely blank and instead the order recited that the cause was "dismissed with prejudice." The State appealed to the district court. While that appeal was pending, the magistrate court sua sponte entered a new, amended signed order in its own files, stating: "A motion was made by defense attorney Ben Ortega to suppress the testimony of Sergeant Martin Trujillo for violation of NMRA 6-506-A(C)(D). Sergeant Martin Trujillo was the arresting Officer. A second motion was made by defense attorney Ben Ortega for a directed verdict of not guilty due to insufficient evidence to proceed. Motion to suppress and directed verdict of not guilty were granted. The Defendant is therefore acquitted." Once the amended magistrate court order was filed, defense counsel moved to dismiss the State's appeal at the district court. The district court found that the magistrate judge's premature termination of the case had been a dismissal to sanction the State's filing of a nonconforming criminal complaint, rather than an acquittal on the merits. Concluding that the State's appeal did not result in double jeopardy, the district court accordingly denied Defendant's motion to dismiss the appeal. Defendant appealed the district court's order denying his motion to dismiss to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the district court, concluding that because "the magistrate court's dismissal constituted an acquittal and, therefore, the State was barred from appealing," it was inappropriate to address "whether . . .Judge Naranjo's ruling suppressing Sergeant Trujillo's testimony was erroneous." After review, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the district court did not err in ruling the state was not constitutionally barred from further prosecution. The magistrate court's termination of defendant's trial before the State had completed presenting its evidence in its case in chief was a procedural dismissal rather than an acquittal on the merits. View "New Mexico v. Baca" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Dominguez v. New Mexico
Petitioner Rodrigo Dominguez was convicted for voluntary manslaughter and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in the death of one person, and the aggravated battery and shooting at or from a motor vehicle resulting in great bodily injury in a second person. Petitioner argued that "New Mexico v. Montoya," (306 P.3d 426 (2013)) precluded him from being cumulatively punished for voluntary manslaughter, aggravated battery and the shooting charges on double jeopardy grounds because these charges all stemmed from the same shooting of the same victim. A majority of the New Mexico Supreme Court ultimately rejected petitioner's double jeopardy arguments, concluding that another case controlled. In response, petitioner filed for habeas relief, seeking to retroactively apply "Montoya" to his case to support the same double jeopardy claims he raised earlier in certiorari review. The Supreme Court again declined to accept petitioner's claims because "Montoya" announced a new procedural rule that could not be applied retroactively. View "Dominguez v. New Mexico" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
Farber v. King
Attorney Daniel Faber filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of three assistant attorneys who alleged alleging gender discrimination in connection with their salaries. The Attorney General filed a motion to stay litigation pending resolution of his motion to dismiss the complaint based on an immunity defense. The federal district court entered a memorandum opinion and order granting the Attorney General’s motion to stay all proceedings, including discovery; the stay was lifted a few months later. Prior to lifting of the stay, Faber filed an Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) request in his own name seeking employment data for every attorney who had been employed by the Attorney General’s Office since January 1987. The records custodian of the Attorney General’s Office denied the IPRA request, stating that “[t]his request is being denied as these records involve a current lawsuit and appear to circumvent the discovery process and the current Order Staying Discovery (attached).” Faber filed a complaint for damages and a petition for writ of mandamus in the state district court against the Attorney General alleging that his IPRA request had been wrongfully denied. The state district court found that the stay of discovery entered by the federal court did not preempt the statutory rights granted to New Mexico citizens by IPRA, and that the Attorney General violated IPRA by denying Faber’s request. The court also issued a writ of mandamus ordering the Attorney General to comply and ruled that damages would be considered at a later date. Faber subsequently moved for an award of damages. The state district court awarded damages of $10 per day from the date of the wrongful denial to the date the stay was lifted and thereafter “damages of $100 per day until the records are provided,” and $257.19 in costs to Faber. The Attorney General appealed the state district court’s award of damages. The determination of the IPRA violation was not at issue on appeal. The issue in this case focused on what type of damages were authorized by the Legislature in Section 14-2-13 12(D). The Supreme Court held that Section 14-2-12(D) permitted compensatory or actual damages because the plain language, purpose, and history of IPRA indicated that neither punitive nor statutory damages were intended by the Legislature. The Court also held that Faber was not eligible for nominal damages. View "Farber v. King" on Justia Law
New Mexico v. Montoya
Baby Breandra Pena (seventeen months old) died while in the care of defendant Nathan Montoya. Defendant was convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of a child under twelve and sentenced to life imprisonment. The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review addressed "the ongoing confusion created by [New Mexico's] child abuse jury instructions. In review of defendant’s conviction on direct appeal, the Court held: (1) the jury instructions used in defendant’s trial accurately instructed the jury of the law that, when considered as a whole, were distinguishable from those used in previous cases which the Court reversed based on erroneous child abuse jury instructions; (2) reckless child abuse may, in some cases, be a lesser included offense of intentional child abuse resulting in the death of a child under twelve (by this opinion, the Court disavowed New Mexico cases suggesting otherwise); (3) when a jury is correctly instructed on both reckless and intentional child abuse resulting in the death of a child under twelve, a step-down instruction is appropriate; (4) the admission of a forensic pathologist’s expert testimony was not in error and that sufficient evidence was presented to convict defendant; and (5) it was abuse of discretion for the district court judge to refuse to consider mitigating the basic sentence of life imprisonment, based on the court’s mistaken understanding that the life sentence was mandatory and could not be altered. Defendant’s conviction for intentional child abuse was affirmed and the case remanded to the district court for resentencing with consideration of potential mitigating circumstances. View "New Mexico v. Montoya" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
New Mexico v. Strauch
Defendant Jason Strauch allegedly revealed to his wife that he had been sexually abusing their minor daughter. Defendant moved out of the family home for a time and began attending counseling with a private-practice social worker licensed by the State. The couple reconciled, and defendant moved back into the home. Defendant continued to see the social worker. The daughter revealed to her mother that the abuse never stopped. Defendant and the wife then separated, and she reported the abuse. Defendant was charged with four counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree. The State filed notice that it intended to call the social worker as a prosecution witness. Defendant moved for a protective order, arguing that the communications were protected from disclosure. The district court held that the private social worker was not a "mandatory reporter" under state law because his work was as a "private therapist" rather than in an "official capacity." On interlocutory appeal by the State, a majority of the Court of Appeals panel affirmed the district court's protective order. The Supreme Court, after its review of the district and appellate courts concluded that both privately and publicly employed social workers were mandatory child abuse reporters, and statements made to a social worker by an alleged child abuser in private counseling sessions were not protected from disclosure in court proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Strauch" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
New Mexico v. Astorga
Defendant Michael Astorga was convicted by jury of first degree murder, tampering with evidence, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. The State sought the death penalty; a sentencing jury could not unanimously agree on the death penalty, and consequently, the district court sentenced defendant to life for the murder charge, followed by thirteen and a half years for the remaining charges. Defendant appealed, raising purported errors that occurred during the guilt phase of trial as grounds for reversal of his conviction. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "New Mexico v. Astorga" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
New Mexico v. Silvas
Defendant Donnie Silvas was convicted by jury of trafficking a controlled substance by possession with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to commit trafficking of the controlled substance. Both charges stemmed from one point in time, and a single sale of drugs. The Court of Appeals overturned the conspiracy conviction based on an expanded use of judicial presumption, also known as "Wharton's Rule." After review of the appellate court's decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the decision to reverse the conspiracy charge, it did so on a different ground: double jeopardy. By this opinion, the Court expressly discouraged "any future expansion of Wharton's Rule beyond its original contours." View "New Mexico v. Silvas" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
New Mexico v. Favela
Defendant Cesar Favela filed a motion requesting permission to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel after his attorney failed to advise him that his guilty plea would result in deportation. The district court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that where a defendant’s attorney fails to advise that defendant of the specific immigration consequences of entering a guilty plea, a warning of such consequences by a judge during a plea colloquy does not, by itself, cure the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the attorney’s deficient performance and should only be given minimal weight in the analysis of prejudice. The State appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ holding that a judge’s warning of such consequences during a plea colloquy could not alone cure the prejudice caused by the attorney’s deficient performance. View "New Mexico v. Favela" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
In re Mahdjid B. and Aliah B.
Respondent-guardian Djamila B. was appointed by a family court as kinship guardian to children Mahdjid and Aliah. Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) brought abuse and neglect proceedings against the guardian and the children's biological parents. Prior to seeking adoption for the children, CYFD filed a motion to dismiss the guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings, arguing the guardian was not an appropriate party to a termination of parental rights proceeding because the guardian was not a parent. The children's court granted CYFD's motion without revoking the kinship guardianship. The Court of Appeals reversed the children's court ruling, holding that the guardian was a necessary and indispensable party to the abuse proceedings. After its review, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' outcome, but on different grounds. The Court held that while kinship guardians were not necessary and indispensable parties to abuse and neglect proceedings, kinship guardians, nonetheless, have a statutory right to a revocation hearing in accordance with the revocation procedures of the Kinship Guardian Act prior to being dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings. "There is no need for separate filings and hearings in the original family court that appointed the kinship guardian because the children’s court presiding over the abuse and neglect proceeding has jurisdiction over the kinship guardian and the subject matter of the case to make decisions that are ultimately in the best interests of the children. In addition to matters involving the guardian, the children's biological father intervened in this appeal arguing his due process rights were violated because he was not given a fair opportunity to voice concerns in the dismissal of Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings. The Supreme Court found it was unnecessary to address the Father's claim in view of its holding on the primary issue. View "In re Mahdjid B. and Aliah B." on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Family Law
New Mexico ex rel. Cisneros v. Martinez
In the 2014 legislative session, the New Mexico Legislature passed the General Appropriations Act of 2014, which included a pair of salary increases for judges and justices of the state judiciary. The first increase was a 5% raise for the judicial branch (including judges). The raise was not separately identified in the language of section 4(B) of the Act. The second increase, separately funded in Section 8(A) was the same 3% raise authorized for all eligible state employees, including judges. Calling out what she referred to as a "dramatic 8% raise," Governor Martinez used her partial veto authority to strike the 3% raise for judges, leaving intact the language set forth in section 4(B). Thereafter, a group of judges, judicial associations and legislators (collectively, petitioners), petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus to declare the Governor's veto of the 3% raise as unconstitutional. Petitioners sought to have the vetoed language reinstated, thereby asking for the full 8% raise. After a full briefing and hearing the arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court denied the petition in part, holding that the Governor's veto was effective with respect to the section 8(A) 3% raise. The Court also granted in part, holding that the 5% raise separately funded in section 4(B) was never vetoed and therefore was still intact. The Court then issued the writ to order the Secretary of the Department of Finance and Administration to implement the 5% raise. View "New Mexico ex rel. Cisneros v. Martinez" on Justia Law
Posted in:
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law