Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Following a second trial, Defendant Danny Surratt was convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor. Defendant appealed his conviction, claiming the district attorney serving as special prosecutor at the second trial lacked the authority to prosecute the case because his appointment by the first special prosecutor, also a district attorney, was invalid. Defendant maintained that the district court lacked jurisdiction over his criminal case. The Court of Appeals agreed with Defendant and reversed his conviction, effectively remanding the case for a third trial. After its review, the Supreme Court held that a properly appointed special prosecutor is given all the authority and duties of the appointing district attorney to prosecute the case for which that special prosecutor was appointed, including the authority to name another special prosecutor if unable to proceed for an ethical reason or other good cause. View "New Mexico v. Surratt" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Jeremy Nichols of child abuse resulting in death or great bodily harm, finding him guilty on a theory of negligently permitting medical neglect of his six-month-old son Kaden Nichols that allegedly resulted in the child’s death. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the conviction was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record, and as such, reversed the conviction and dismissed the charge. View "New Mexico v. Nichols" on Justia Law

Four years and three months after Defendant Mark Serros was arrested and charged with sexually abusing his nephew, the district court dismissed his case, concluding that his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment to the federal Constitution had been violated. Among other things, the district court found that Defendant had suffered extreme prejudice as a result of the length and circumstances of his detention. A divided Court of Appeals reversed. The majority reasoned that the delay in bringing Defendant to trial could not be attributed to the State, faulting Defendant because he had agreed to numerous requests to extend the time for commencing trial and had twice requested new counsel. The dissent concluded that the delays resulted primarily from the “negligence and disregard” of Defendant’s attorneys and that, whether or not the State was at fault, Defendant’s right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed: the Court agreed with the district court’s conclusion that the length and circumstances of Defendant’s pre-trial incarceration resulted in extreme prejudice. The Court therefore hold that dismissal was appropriate because Defendant did not cause or acquiesce in the numerous delays in his case and because the State failed in its obligation to bring Defendant’s case to trial. View "New Mexico v. Serros" on Justia Law

Defendant was 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. Relying on “Santobello v. New York,” (404 U.S. 257 (1971)), the New Mexico Supreme Court held previously that a plea-bargained sentence must be fulfilled by the prosecution, and if not, will be enforced by the courts. In this first-degree murder appeal, the Court applied that principle to a prosecutorial promise to dismiss defendant’s tampering-with-evidence charge if the defendant would locate and produce the murder weapon. Defendant indeed produced the weapon, but the prosecutor did not drop the charge as promised and defendant was convicted of tampering with evidence. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the tampering conviction. Defendant’s remaining convictions were affirmed, and the case was remanded for resentencing. View "New Mexico v. King" on Justia Law

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

DeAngelo M. (Child) was thirteen years and eight days old when, during a custodial interrogation by three law enforcement officers, he made inculpatory statements regarding a burglary, which connected him to a murder. Had Child made his statements nine days earlier, his statements would not have been admissible against him in any delinquency proceedings. Had Child been fifteen years old at the time of his statement, his statement would have been admissible if the prosecution proved by a preponderance that Child’s statement was elicited after waiver of his constitutional and statutory rights. However, because Child was thirteen years old and his statement was given to a person in a position of authority, there was a rebuttable presumption that his statement was inadmissable. The Court of Appeals held that to rebut the presumption, the prosecution had to prove by clear and convincing evidence, through expert testimony, that “Child had the maturity and intelligence of an average fifteen-year-old child to understand his situation and the rights he possessed.” The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress because the prosecution did not meet this burden and remanded for a new trial. The State appealed. After review, the Supreme Court held that Section 32A-2-14(F) required the State to prove by clear and convincing evidence that at the time a thirteen- or fourteen-year-old child makes a statement, confession, or admission to a person in a position of authority, the child: (1) was warned of his constitutional and statutory rights; and (2) knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived each right. To prove the second element, the recording of the custodial interrogation which resulted in the statement, confession, or admission must prove clearly and convincingly that the child’s answer to open-ended questions demonstrated that the thirteen- or fourteen-year-old child had the maturity to understand each of his or her constitutional and statutory rights and the force of will to insist on exercising those rights. Expert testimony may assist the fact-finder in understanding the evidence or determining the facts, but it is not essential. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence in this case did not prove that Child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived each right. Therefore, his statement should have been suppressed. View "New Mexico v. DeAngelo M." 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 a consolidated appeal, Respondents Steven B. and Ernie Begaye were both enrolled members of the Navajo Nation who were accused of offenses committed on Parcel Three of Fort Wingate (Parcel Three). The question this case presented for the Supreme Court's review was whether Parcel Three was a "dependent Indian community" and therefore Indian country under 18 U.S.C. 1151(b) (2012) and "Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government," (522 U.S. 520 (1998)). If so, then the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Respondents; if not, then the New Mexico Supreme Court had to reverse the district court and permit the State to proceed against Respondents. In review of the controlling case law, the history and the present circumstances of Parcel Three, the Supreme Court concluded that Parcel Teal was not a dependent Indian community, and the district court, therefore, had jurisdiction over Respondents. The district court and the Court of Appeals having concluded otherwise, the Supreme Court reversed. View "New Mexico v. Steven B." 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