Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

This issue before the Supreme Court in this case was the appointment of the New Mexico House of Representatives following the 2010 federal census. It was undisputed that the House was unconstitutionally apportioned. The Legislature then passed House Bill 39 to reapportion the House during a 2011 Special Session. The Governor vetoed the bill. Because lawmakers failed to create constitutionally-acceptable districts, the burden fell on the courts to draw a reapportionment map for the House. The Court appointed a retired district judge to oversee the judiciary's process. Petitioners filed petitions for a writ of superintending control to ask the Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over the case, and to reverse the district court to adopt an alternative plan or remand the case with instructions regarding the legal standard that should be applied. After reading the parties' briefs and listening to oral argument, the Court entered an order articulating the legal principles that should govern redistricting litigation in New Mexico and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. View "Maestas v. Hall" on Justia Law

Defendant Zirachuen Rivera drove through a DWI checkpoint in Bernalillo County and an officer suspected he had been drinking alcohol. Defendant showed signs of impairment on the standard field sobriety tests and was arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. Defendant’s bench trial began in Metropolitan Court where assistant district attorney Rachel Bayless entered an appearance for both herself and Chris Mills, a purported attorney, on behalf of the State. At the conclusion of trial, Defendant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated. Upon leaving the courtroom, defense counsel overheard Mills telling Bayless that he had decided not to take the New Mexico bar exam. Upon learning that Mills was not a licensed New Mexico attorney, Defendant filed a motion for a mistrial and a new trial. Defendant later attached a certificate from the Chief Clerk of the New Mexico Supreme Court to affirm that Mills was not on the official roll of New Mexico attorneys.In its opinion in this case, the Supreme Court clarified the rules and judicial precedent pertaining to the authorized practice of law in all state courts. The Court held that practice is limited to "duly licensed attorneys who are members of the State Bar or otherwise authorized by this Court’s rules in specific, limited circumstances." Because the Court of Appeals relied on statutory expressions that appeared to permit the unauthorized practice of law in magistrate courts, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals while affirming Defendant's conviction. View "New Mexico v. Rivera" on Justia Law

Petitioner Timothy Allen appealed the district court's dismissal of his petition for habeas relief. He alleged he received ineffective assistance of counsel after he was sentenced to death for the 1994 kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a seventeen-year-old victim. The district court did not consider the merits of Petitioner's claims but instead dismissed the petition as a sanction for his refusal to answer court-ordered deposition questions, which Petitioner claimed violated his privilege against self-incrimination and attorney-client privilege. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that deposing Petitioner was improper, and that communications that were relevant to Petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were excepted from the attorney-client privilege. The Court reversed the dismissal of Petitioner's petition for habeas corpus and remanded the case back to the district court to determine the merits of his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "Allen v. LeMaster" on Justia Law

Defendant Curtis Harper was indicted on fifteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a child under the age of thirteen. During a docket call, the district court learned for the first time that not all witness interviews had been conducted, including those of the alleged victim and the doctor who examined her. The district court rescheduled the trial and verbally instructed the attorneys to complete the witness interviews. During a subsequent hearing, because neither the victim nor the doctor were interviewed before the court-imposed deadline, the district court prohibited the State from calling either of them as witnesses. The State agreed with Defendant that it could not make a prima facie case against him if these two witnesses were not allowed to testify. The State appealed the district court's exclusion of the two witnesses. The Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the district court regarding the victim, concluding that the State made efforts to comply with the district court's request and Defendant was not prejudiced by the State's failure to make the victim available for an interview within the time frame established by the district court. Because exclusion of witnesses requires an intentional violation of a court order, prejudice to the opposing party, and consideration of less severe sanctions, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals with respect to the victim and reversed with respect to the doctor. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s order precluding the victim and the doctor from testifying at trial and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Harper" on Justia Law

Defendant directly appealed her conviction for intentional child abuse that resulted in the death of her eight-year-old daughter. On appeal, she argued that: (1) the jury was improperly instructed as to the elements of intentional child abuse; (2) the State failed to present sufficient evidence from which the jury could have convicted her beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the testimony of the supervising pathologist regarding the child's autopsy violated the Confrontation Clause; and (4) the prosecutor engaged in multiple incidents of prosecutorial misconduct. Upon review of the trial court record, the Supreme Court concluded that: (1) the jury was indeed improperly instructed and (2) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction. The Court found that Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were not preserved for appeal. The Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Cabezuela" on Justia Law

In "State v. Williamson," (212 P.3d 376) the Supreme Court advised district court judges reviewing search warrants after the fact to defer to the judgment and reasonable inferences of the judge who issued the warrant "if the affidavit provides a substantial basis to support a finding of probable cause." In this case, the Court reviewed an order suppressing evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant, and "once again" the Court emphasized that "a reviewing court should not substitute its judgment for that of the issuing court." Based on the affidavit of the warrant that belies this case, the issuing judge found probable cause and issued the warrant. After the search was conducted and evidence was collected, Defendant Jerry Trujillo moved to suppress the evidence collected. The motion was based on a lack of an express nexus between the criminal activity described in the affidavit and the actual address that was searched. While the narrative contained references to "an address" or "the residence" or "the Trujillo home," at no point did the affidavit explicitly state that the residence and the address weren't one and the same place. Defendant therefore claimed the search violated his constitutional rights. A second district judge (reviewing judge) granted Defendant's motion and suppressed all of the evidence obtained in the search, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the appellate court. "Here [the Court sustained] the search because some deference is due the decision of the issuing judge and because, in accordance with sound policy, close cases in this area are to be decided in favor of our pronounced preference for warrants." View "New Mexico v. Trujillo" on Justia Law

Defendant Debbie Cruz was convicted of issuing payroll checks with insufficient funds to cover them.  Defendant was charged with four counts of issuing worthless checks, pursuant to the "Worthless Check Act."  Convicted on each count, Defendant argued on appeal, among other issues, the lack of sufficient evidence to prove that she had issued a check "in exchange for anything of value." Because the worthless checks were issued a week after the last day of the pay period, the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, relying on previous opinions of the Supreme Court to conclude that the Act applied only to a "contemporaneous exchange" and not to pre-existing or antecedent debts.  Upon its review, the Supreme Court rejected that distinction as inconsistent with the clear legislative intent and purpose of the Act.  Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Defendant Ramon Lopez was convicted by a jury of multiple crimes, including first-degree felony murder. The Supreme Court addressed two of the issues Defendant raised on appeal:  whether Defendant's right to confront witnesses who testified against him was violated by the admission of the preliminary hearing testimony of an unavailable witness, and whether the district court erred in allowing the State to impeach its own witness with otherwise inadmissible hearsay.  Upon review, the Court concluded that the district court committed reversible error by allowing hearsay to be admitted under the auspices of the State's impeachment of the preliminary hearing testimony of the unavailable witness. The Court did not reach Defendant’s remaining issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Lopez" on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on a petition invoking its emergency original jurisdiction to review the indefinite detention of thirty-two courtroom spectators (Petitioners) who had all been summarily ordered to jail for contempt of court by Respondent Judge Sam Sanchez after a contentious hearing evolved into a courtroom disruption created by some, but not all, of the Petitioners. The events that took place immediately after Respondent recessed the court were preserved in a digital audio recording. The noise level in the courtroom increased as the voices of the defendant and some of the spectators became louder.  Thirty-nine seconds after the bailiff first told the crowd to rise and while audible statements were still being made, Respondent yelled, "That's enough! I'll hold every one of you in contempt and jail you all!" Upon review of the trial record, the Court found that the record reflects that whoever had been acting in any disruptive or disobedient manner had ceased doing so immediately upon Respondent's oral pronouncement that he was sending everyone to jail. "Petitioners clearly were jailed for the past behavior of one or more of them and not as a coercive measure to stop any continuing disorderly or disobedient behavior. Respondent lawfully could have initiated indirect contempt proceedings against those individuals whom he had reason to believe were participating in disruptive or defiant conduct, but he was required to honor the procedures of the law and the limits of constitutional due process."  In this case, the Court concluded he "utterly" failed to do so. The Court held that Respondent's convictions and jail sentences of Petitioners were an unlawful abuse of judicial power requiring the Court's order that Petitioners be released from jail and that their criminal contempt convictions be vacated.  View "Concha v. Sanchez" on Justia Law

Appellant TW Telecom of New Mexico (TW Telecom) appealed a final order issued by the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) in "In the Matter of the Development of an Alternative Form of Regulation Plan for Qwest Corporation" (AFOR III Final Order). TW Telecom claimed that the PRC (1) adopted certain conclusions from a previous final order, lacking justification in the AFOR III record; (2) deregulated Qwest Corporation's (Qwest) rates in violation of the New Mexico Telecommunications Act and the separation of powers doctrine in the New Mexico Constitution; and (3) deprived TW Telecom of proper due process. The claims raised in this appeal involved three cases before the PRC that concerned the development of various alternative forms of regulation plans issued by the PRC, and Qwest's compliance with the terms and conditions therein.  The cases addressed various issues, including pricing provisions and detailed requirements for the filing of tariff changes, tariffs for new services, promotional offerings, packaged services, and individual contracts for services. Upon review, the Supreme Court annulled and vacated AFOR III Final Order and remanded the case back to the PRC for further proceedings. The Court concluded that the PRC indeed violated TW Telecom's due process because it adopted conclusions from a previous proceeding without affording the parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court did not address TW Telecom's second claim. View "TW Telecom of New Mexico v. New Mexico Public Regulation Comm'n" on Justia Law