Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

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

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

Defendant Walter Brown was arrested in 2011, and indicted two weeks later on an array of charges, including first-degree felony murder and, alternatively, second-degree murder. The district court imposed a $250,000 cash or surety bond at Defendant’s arraignment. After spending more than two years in pretrial custody awaiting trial because he lacked the financial resources to post such a bond, Defendant moved the district court to review his conditions of release and to release him under the supervision of the Second Judicial District Court’s pretrial services program with appropriate nonmonetary conditions of release. After hearing from Defendant and the State, the district court orally denied Defendant’s motion for release on nonmonetary conditions on the ground that Defendant’s charge of first-degree felony murder carried a possible life sentence that would require at least thirty years of imprisonment. The district court subsequently filed a written order setting forth detailed factual findings. Based on the evidence presented at the motion hearing, the district court found that the pretrial services program could fashion appropriate conditions of release for Defendant and that Defendant could live with his father and return to his former job if released. After several more months of pretrial confinement, Defendant filed a second motion, again seeking release under the supervision of the pretrial services program with appropriate nonmonetary release conditions. At a hearing on the second motion, defense counsel reiterated the information presented at the first hearing five months earlier and argued that Defendant’s unique personal history made him likely to comply with conditions of release and unlikely to commit additional crimes while released. After the district court denied Defendant’s second motion to amend the conditions of release, Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals by filing a motion under Rule 12-204 NMRA. After its review, the Supreme Court found that defendant presented the district court with uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that nonmonetary conditions of pretrial release were sufficient to reasonably assure that Defendant was not likely to pose a flight or safety risk. Despite this evidence, the district court ordered that Defendant be held in jail unless he posted a $250,000 cash or surety bond, based solely on the nature and seriousness of the charged offense. The Court concluded that the district court erred by requiring a $250,000 bond when the evidence demonstrated that less restrictive conditions of pretrial release would be sufficient. The Court therefore reversed the district court’s pretrial release order and instructed the district court to release Defendant on appropriate nonmonetary conditions. View "New Mexico v. Brown" on Justia Law

Antonio T., a seventeen-year-old high school student, was taken to the principal's office because he was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol. The assistant principal questioned Antonio about his possession of alcohol in the presence of a deputy sheriff. Antonio admitted that he had brought alcohol to school, where he drank it. At the principal's request, the deputy administered a breath alcohol test to Antonio, which was positive for alcohol. After administering the test, the deputy advised Antonio of his right to remain silent, and Antonio declined to answer the questions. Antonio was charged with the delinquent act of possession of alcohol by a minor. He filed a motion to suppress the statements he made to the assistant principal because his statements were elicited without a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his right to remain silent. The district court denied his motion, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reversed both the district court and the Court of Appeals: although a school official may insist that a child answer questions for purposes of school disciplinary proceedings, any statements elicited by the official may not be used against the child in a delinquency proceeding unless the child made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his or her right to remain silent. Because the State failed to prove that Antonio effectively waived this right, his statements were inadmissible in the delinquency proceeding. View "New Mexico v. Antonio T." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Vincent Montoya of kidnapping with the intent to inflict a sexual offense upon his girlfriend (Victim). Defendant was also convicted of two other crimes not relevant to this appeal. The issue this case presented to the Supreme Court centered on "the confusing interplay" between an accused's Sixth Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him," and New Mexico's rape shield law designed to protect a victim's privacy. Because the Court determined that the accused was denied an opportunity to fully confront his accuser and because this error could have affected the jury's verdict, it reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Montoya" on Justia Law

A jury returned a guilty verdict against defendant for intentional and negligent child abuse causing great bodily harm to an infant, which the Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum opinion. Upon review of the case, the Supreme Court held that under the particular circumstances of this case, the district court erred: (1) when it rejected defense counsel's request for separate jury instructions for intentional and negligent child abuse; (2) that the evidence offered to support the charge of criminally negligent child abuse resulting in great bodily harm failed, according to the State's own witnesses, to prove that Defendant's actions caused the infant's injuries; and (3) that the evidence of intentional child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, in this case, an allegation that the accused intentionally suffocated the infant, failed to prove that charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the Court reversed the district court and order the charges dismissed with prejudice for lack of sufficient evidence. View "New Mexico v. Consaul" on Justia Law

A Curry County grand jury indicted Defendant Julian Gutierrez on three counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor based on the testimony of Defendant’s daughter that he touched or pinched her breasts on several occasions when she was fifteen years old. At the time of the alleged incidents, Defendant was estranged from his daughter’s mother, who lived in Lubbock, Texas. After Defendant’s indictment, his daughter moved out of their home to stay next door with her paternal grandparents. On the first scheduled day of trial, Defendant informed his attorney that he had been provided with a statement written by his daughter that related to a recent visit by prosecution representatives to her school. When defense counsel asked for a hearing on the new revelations, the prosecutor admitted not having disclosed to the defense anything about the pretrial encounter at which the daughter attempted to recant her grand jury testimony. The next morning, when Defendant’s daughter did not appear to testify and the State could not locate her, the State asked the district court to make a finding of manifest necessity and declare a mistrial. Two weeks later, the daughter still not having been located, the district court declared a mistrial over the objection of the defense and permanently discharged the jury. The court rejected Defendant’s argument that determining manifest necessity required considering the “intertwined” matter of prosecutorial misconduct in the encounter with the daughter, saying that it would address the propriety of that encounter separately “at a later date.” Another two weeks passed, and the daughter had been arrested on the bench warrant. The court held hearings on Defendant’s motions to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct and to preclude retrial for lack of manifest necessity justifying the mistrial. The ultimate issue this case presented to for the Supreme Court's review centered on the boundaries between proper and improper prosecutorial conduct in dealing with recalcitrant witnesses and of the circumstances in which a mistrial and retrial may take place without violating constitutional double jeopardy protections when a witness does not appear for trial. Following federal double jeopardy principles in United States Supreme Court precedent, the New Mexico Court concluded that a prosecution witness’s failure to appear for Defendant’s trial did not constitute manifest necessity for granting a mistrial after a jury had been selected and sworn to hear his case. Because empaneling a new jury and retrying Defendant would violate his double jeopardy protections under the United States Constitution, the Court remanded this case to the district court with instructions to dismiss. View "New Mexico v. Gutierrez" on Justia Law

A jury found Defendant Gerard Parvilus guilty of the 2008 aggravated burglary of his estranged wife’s separate dwelling, murder of her boyfriend, first-degree kidnapping of his wife and her boyfriend, aggravated assault of his wife, and interference with communications. The district court granted Defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and vacated the aggravated burglary conviction because of Defendant's claimed unrestricted right under Section 40-3-3 to make an unconsented entry into his wife's separate residence. Section 40-3-3 (1907), a civil marital property statute, recognized the rights of married women to hold separate property but provided that "neither [husband nor wife could] be excluded from the other’s dwelling." The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Supreme Court held that Section 40-3-3 did not preclude a conviction for burglary of a spouse's separate dwelling, and reversed the contrary rulings of both lower courts. View "New Mexico v. Parvilus" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with trafficking controlled substances and possession of drug paraphernalia based on evidence obtained by the police, who found evidence of methamphetamine manufacturing in the dumpster of the Choice Inn in Clovis where Defendant rented a room. Prior to trial, Defendant moved for the suppression of evidence found in the dumpster, as well as evidence obtained from the room, which was acquired by a search warrant that was based in part on the evidence recovered from the dumpster. He argued that the police's warrantless search of the garbage and subsequent immediate searches violated his constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. The district court granted the motion to suppress. With this opinion the Supreme Court addressed whether, pursuant to Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution, Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in garbage left out for collection in the motel dumpster. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court's ruling. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ ultimate holding, but on slightly different grounds. View "New Mexico v. Crane" on Justia Law