Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A jury convicted Defendant Aaron Ramos of violating a protection order. He appealed, arguing that he was refused a jury instruction that would have required the jury to find that he had “knowingly” violated the protection order. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision not to give the “knowingly” instruction. The Supreme Court read the language and structure of the statute at issue and its legislative policy to conclude that it was reversible error to deny Defendant's requested instruction. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for trafficking an imitation controlled substance (here, baking soda packaged to look like cocaine). The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court had to reconcile the application of the state Imitation Controlled Substances Act (which allowed a jury to consider prior convictions related to controlled substances or fraud), and the Rules of Evidence, which restrict the use of prior bad acts (including criminal convictions). To avoid a conflict, the Court held that any evidence of prior convictions referred to by the statute must also be admissible under the rules of evidence. In this case, Defendant's prior convictions did not satisfy Rule 404(B), and therefore their admission into evidence was made in error. The Court found the admission harmless, however, and affirmed Defendant's convictions. The case was remanded to correct a sentencing error. View "New Mexico v. Serna" on Justia Law

Defendant Orlando Torrez was convicted of felony murder after a jury rejected his claim of self-defense. Defendant raised several issues on appeal: (1) whether there were double jeopardy violations; (2) whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions; (3) the alleged denial of process when a witness failed to appear; and (4) the insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Finding none of Defendant's claims of error persuasive, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Mexico v. Torrez" on Justia Law

In a State Police operation called "Yerba Buena 2006," the state indicted 72-year old Defendant Norman Davis for possessing eight ounces or more of marijuana, and possession of miscellaneous drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia seized. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his home. Finding substantial evidence that defendant voluntarily consented to the search, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of defendant's motion to suppress. View "New Mexico v. Davis" on Justia Law

Defendants Christopher Gurule and Linda Davis were charged with criminal sexual penetration of a minor, criminal sexual contact of a minor, kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor in 2007. A special agent with the Attorney General's Office's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force applied for a search warrant believing that she uncovered fifty-eight files made available on a peer-to-peer network from an IP address associated with defendants. Defendants objected to the search and seizure of a digital camera, admission of the testimony of the mother of the alleged victim, and testimony of defendant Davis' son, who prepared to testify he saw his mother viewing child pornography on her computer. The district court granted suppression of the challenged evidence. The State filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge those evidentiary rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed with respect to testimony of defendant Davis' son, but affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "New Mexico v. Gurule" on Justia Law

Defendants Lester and Carol Boyse were charged with fifty-two counts of cruelty to animals. They sought to suppress evidence discovered by investigators because the warrant was approved by a magistrate judge via telephone and not in person. The district court denied their motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court analyzed the practice of telephonic approval of search warrants against the strictures of the state constitution. Upon review, the Court concluded that a "showing" to a magistrate can be made through audible or other sensory means, in addition to being made in person. Therefore, the Court held that as a matter of law, telephonic approval of search warrants was constitutional, and affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress evidence. View "New Mexico v. Boyse" on Justia Law

The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether an out-of-state internet retailer, Barnesandnoble.com LLC (bn.com), which has no physical presence in New Mexico other than through stores owned by a sister corporation, Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc., is subject to New Mexico gross receipts tax on its sales to New Mexico residents without offending the federal Commerce Clause. The answer to this question depended on whether Booksellers engaged in activities in New Mexico on behalf of bn.com that were significantly associated with bn.com's ability to establish and maintain a market for its sales in New Mexico, thus creating a substantial nexus between bn.com and New Mexico. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Booksellers did engage in such activities, which included: (1) Booksellers' promotion of bn.com through sales of gift cards redeemable at bn.com and bearing bn.com's name; (2) Booksellers' policy of sharing customers' email addresses with bn.com; (3) Booksellers' implicit endorsement of bn.com through the companies' shared loyalty program and Booksellers' return policy; and (4) Booksellers' in-state use of Barnes & Noble logos and trademarks, which bn.com also used. Therefore, the Court held that Booksellers' in-state activities were sufficient to create a substantial nexus between bn.com and New Mexico, so that the state could tax bn.com's sales to customers in New Mexico without offending the federal Commerce Clause. View "N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't. v. Barnesandnoble.com, LLC" on Justia Law

Defendant Halliburton Energy Services hired Plaintiff Edward Flemma to work as a cement equipment operator in Houma, Louisiana, in January of 1982. During his twenty-six years of employment with Halliburton, Flemma was promoted several times and worked for the company in Louisiana, Texas, Angola, and New Mexico. The last position he held was as district manager in Farmington, New Mexico, where he worked from 2006 until the time of his termination in 2008.The issue on appeal before the Supreme Court in this case centered on a conflict of laws issue that requires the Court to determine whether enforcement of an arbitration agreement, formed in the State of Texas, would offend New Mexico public policy to overcome our traditional choice of law rule. Upon review, the Court concluded that the agreement formed in Texas would be unconscionable under New Mexico law, and it therefore violated New Mexico public policy. Thus, the Court applied New Mexico law and concluded that no valid agreement to arbitrate existed between the parties because Halliburton's promise to arbitrate was illusory. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded this case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Flemma v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc." on Justia Law

On the evening of July 15, 2007, Defendant Benjamin Montoya, his girlfriend, his seventeen-year-old brother, and several companions were gathered in the front yard of Defendant's family home. A group of young men in a Cadillac drove by, honking, yelling, and displaying gang signs. At least some of Defendant's group belonged to a rival gang. A few minutes later, the Cadillac returned and, along with a Ford Expedition and a third car, stopped at a nearby vacant lot. When the occupants continued yelling and called Defendant's group over, Defendant and his friends started walking toward the vacant lot to confront approximately fifteen people who got out of the three stopped cars. Guns were pulled on both sides, and Defendant's brother was severely wounded by gunshots to his leg and abdomen. Defendant and his friends retreated to his home, dragging Defendant's brother to their driveway. The Cadillac group briefly chased Defendant and his friends before going back to their cars. The three cars initially left the area, but the Expedition turned around and came back toward Defendant's house, gunfire coming out of the car. Defendant returned fire using an AK-47 rifle. While his friends were trying to help his brother in the driveway and stop the bleeding from the gunshot wounds, Defendant ran outside and began shooting at the Expedition. The driver, victim Diego Delgado, was shot seven times and died of multiple gunshot wounds, including one shot to the back of the head. One of the issues raised on appeal of the subsequent prosecutions and convictions of those involved "the theoretically separate offenses of causing great bodily harm to a person by shooting at a motor vehicle and the homicide resulting from the penetration of the same bullet into the same person." The Supreme Court held that current New Mexico jurisprudence precluded cumulative punishment for both crimes, and it therefore overruled "New Mexico v. Gonzales" (824 P.2d 1023 (1992)), and the cases that followed it. In addition, the Court held that in a felony murder prosecution where the evidence will support a conviction for either second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter, it is fundamental error for the felony murder essential elements jury instruction to omit the defining requirement that the accused did not act in the heat of passion as a result of the legally adequate provocation that would reduce murder to manslaughter. View "New Mexico v. Montoya" on Justia Law

Petitioner Clifton Skidgel had been trying for over thirty years to get the attention of the state courts to correct his parole eligibility for the life sentences imposed on him after he pled guilty to four counts of first-degree murder in 1980. He sought certiorari from the Supreme Court to review the district court's summary dismissal of his most recent petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court granted certiorari on the issue of the district court's order that Petitioner must serve thirty instead of ten years before consideration for parole, which the court ordered in reliance on our opinion in "Quintana v. New Mexico Department of Corrections," (668 P.2d 1101 (1983)); and denied certiorari on all remaining issues. After review, the Court expressly overruled Quintana to the extent that it was inconsistent with "Devine v. New Mexico Department of Corrections," (866 F.2d 339 (10th Cir. 1989)), reversed the district court on Petitioner's parole eligibility, and ordered the district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus providing that Petitioner shall become eligible for parole consideration upon the completion of ten years of imprisonment on the life sentence he was then serving. View "Skidgel v. Hatch" on Justia Law