Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant Steve Tollardo was convicted by a jury of being an accessory to first-degree murder, being an accessory to kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder, and conspiracy to commit kidnapping. He was acquitted of being an accessory to aggravated arson and conspiracy to commit aggravated arson. The Supreme Court addressed only one of the issues Defendant raised on appeal: whether the district court erred in advising the jury that two other individuals were convicted of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder in connection with the same homicide underlying the charges against Defendant. The Court concluded that the district court did err in mentioning the coconspirators' convictions, and that the error was not harmless. Accordingly, the Court reversed Defendant's convictions and remanded the case to the district court for a new trial. In reaching this holding, the Court reexamined its harmless error analysis and clarified that a review of the particular circumstances in each case, rather than mechanical application of a multi-factor test, must guide the inquiry into whether a given trial error requires reversal. View "New Mexico v. Tollardo" on Justia Law

In June 2005, the New Mexico Department of Corrections (DOC) adopted an Employee DWI Policy. The DOC hired Respondent Rudy Sais in April 2006 as a Correctional Officer I. Respondent reviewed the Policy and signed a DWI acknowledgment form, noting that he received a copy of the Policy and he understood its requirements. In 2006, Respondent was arrested on suspicion of aggravated DWI. Respondent received a seven-day suspension as a result of the arrest. The criminal charges against Respondent were ultimately dismissed without an adjudication of guilt or innocence. In 2008, Respondent was again arrested on suspicion of DWI. The criminal charges against Respondent were once again dismissed. After a DOC investigation, Respondent was dismissed based on a second offense under the Policy. Respondent appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board and a hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). At the hearing, Respondent claimed that he was treated differently than other employees under the Policy. After the hearing, the ALJ submitted an extensive recommended decision to the Personnel Board that supported Respondent’s termination. The Personnel Board adopted the ALJ’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in their entirety and upheld Respondent’s termination. The district court reversed the Personnel Board, finding that "[t]he termination of [Respondent] was arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law" because "he was not treated in a similar fashion to several other officers in similar circumstances." The DOC then petitioned for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, which denied the petition. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to address the important policy issues implicated "when DWI and public employment intersect, especially in light of [the] Court’s precedent on the same subject." After review, the Supreme Court reversed: "[w]hen the district court concluded that Respondent 'was not treated in a similar fashion to several other officers in similar circumstances,' the court was simply incorrect based upon the record before it." View "Sais v. NM Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

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