Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff Joe Encinias and his parents hired defendants Russell Whitener ad the Whitener Law Firm to represent plaintiff in a possible suit against the Robertson High School and the Las Vegas School District after he was badly beaten by a classmate at the school two years earlier. Plaintiff called the firm out of concern on the applicable statute of limitations on his case. In fact, the statute had run by that time. A Whitener attorney testified that he and his colleagues had been aware of the statute of limitations, but allowed it to run because they were concerned about the strength of plaintiff's case. In 2007, Whitener realized the case was barred; in early 2008, the firm decided not to pursue the suit. Whitener waited until the spring of 2008 to tell plaintiff and his family that it had missed the statute of limitations. Later that fall, plaintiff sued the firm for malpractice. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the firm. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded the trial court erred in its grant of summary judgment, finding genuine issues of fact remained with regard to plaintiff's case. View "Encinias v. Whitener Law Firm" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case centered on whether defendant professional corporations and a limited liability company were "health care providers" as defined by the state Medical Malpractice Act so as to be able to receive the Act's benefits. The Court of Appeals determined that though Defendants did not literally meet the Act's definition of "health care provider," it nonetheless held that Defendants were health care providers under the Act because a strict adherence to the plain language of the definition would conflict with legislative intent. Although the Court of Appeals reached the same conclusion, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court's determination that the definition of "health care provider" literally excludes Defendants. The Supreme Court concluded that several provisions in the Act indicated that the Legislature intended professional medical organizations like Defendants to be covered by the Act. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals but on different grounds. View "Baker v. Hedstrom" on Justia Law

The narrow question in this case was whether a district court judge has the authority to determine whether one of the named parties to a case pending before him or her is entitled to exercise an independent peremptory excusal. The Supreme Court answered this question affirmatively and held that under Rule 1-088.1 NMRA, a district court judge has the authority to decide whether a peremptory challenge filed against him or her is both timely and correct. "In reviewing the adverse effect the existing rule has upon our judicial system today, we conclude that the rule must be amended. Our goal in doing so is to develop a rule that is meaningful - one that maintains the right of everyone to a fair and impartial tribunal and one that eliminates the unnecessary delays caused by our current rule - so that we may always strive to attain an ever more effective and efficient system of justice in our New Mexico courts." View "Quality Automotive Center, LLC v. Arrieta" on Justia Law

Appellants, the New Mexico Attorney General and New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers, asked the Supreme Court to vacate and annul the final order in PRC Case No. 11-00308-UT (Case 308 Final Order) because it permitted Public Service Company of New Mexico (PNM) to earn returns on the operating expenses incurred from energy efficiency programs. Appellants argue that such returns are inconsistent with New Mexico law. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that Case 308 Final Order was consistent with the PRC’s ratemaking authority under the New Mexico Public Utility Act, the New Mexico Efficient Use of Energy Act, and with the Court's holding in "Attorney General v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission" (258 P.3d 453). Furthermore, the Court held that Case 308 Final Order was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the Case 308 Final Order. View "NMAG v. NMPRC" on Justia Law

The issue before the Supreme Court in this case was whether the right to personal confrontation of adverse witnesses in criminal prosecutions applies at the pretrial probable cause determination. The Court held that it does not because the right of confrontation in Article II, Section 14 of the New Mexico Constitution, as with the right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applies only at a criminal trial where guilt or innocence is determined, and the Court overruled the contrary precedent of "Mascarenas v. New Mexico," (458 P.2d 789). View "New Mexico v. Lopez" on Justia Law

Elane Photography offers wedding photography to the general public, and posts its photographs on a password protected website for its customers. In this case, Elane refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether application of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) was violated by Elane when it refused to take the photographs; (2) whether application of the NMHRA violates either the Free Speech or the Free Exercise Clause of the federal constitution; or (3) whether this application violates the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA). Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that when Elane refused to photograph the commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the NMHRA does not violate the free speech guarantees because there is no government-mandated message or the publication of the speech of another. Finally, the Court held that the NMRFRA did not apply in this case. View "Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock" on Justia Law

In July 2009, attorney Claude Convisser filed a petition to initiate a Santa Fe County grand jury proceeding. Convisser's petition sought an investigation of a "suspicion of criminal fraud" in connection with the activities of "[Jeffrey] Harbour and his cohorts" in obtaining a will from Frances Harwood shortly before her death in 2003 that gave Harbour control of Harwood's two nonprofit organizations, EcoVersity and Prajna Foundation. Convisser sought to compel a grand jury investigation through a citizens' petition after the New Mexico Attorney General and the Santa Fe District Attorney separately declined his requests to pursue the matter. When Convisser filed his grand jury petition in district court, he included the affidavit of the Santa Fe County Clerk, whom he asked to verify that his petition signatories were Santa Fe County registered voters. In her affidavit, the County Clerk stated (1) that Convisser needed the signatures of 1770 registered voters in order to meet the constitutional requirement; (2) that the names of 68% were the same as names of people who appeared on Santa Fe County's voter registration rolls; (3) the Clerk could not verify that any of the petition's signatories were actually registered voters, because the petition failed to include the signatories' addresses. The district court ultimately rejected the petition, and Convisser appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case by rejecting the grand jury petition whose signatories were not confirmed to be registered voters. View "Convisser v. Ecoversity" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Samora was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes for the beating death of his girlfriend and a subsequent robbery and stabbing at an Albuquerque convenience store. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that his convictions should have been reversed as a result of the district court’s excusal of a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had difficulty understanding English. While the Court agreed with Defendant’s argument that the juror’s dismissal violated Article VII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, the Supreme Court held that it was an unpreserved error and not the kind of fundamental error that required reversal of a conviction without first having raised it at trial. View "New Mexico v. Samora" on Justia Law

Horace Bounds farmed in the Mimbres basin. Along with the New Mexico Farm and Livestock Bureau, Petitioners brought a facial constitutional challenge against the New Mexico Domestic Well Statute (DWS). Petitioners contended that the DWS violated the New Mexico constitutional doctrine of prior appropriation as well as due process of law. Petitioners' won at the district court level, but not at the Court of Appeals. Agreeing with the substance of the appellate court's opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the DWS does not violate either the doctrine of prior appropriation set forth in the New Mexico Constitution or the guarantees of due process of law. View "Bounds v. State ex rel. D'Antonio" on Justia Law

Defendant Manuel Turrietta argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that his right to a public trial was violated when the district court partially closed the courtroom during the testimony of two confidential informants. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the state did not demonstrate an overriding interest for closing the courtroom, and that the district court failed to adequately assess the possible alternatives to closure, or to make adequate findings to support its decision. A "substantial reason" standard does not meet constitutional muster, and the Court held that courts must apply a "Waller" standard prior to closure. As such, Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated, and the courtroom closure was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Turrietta" on Justia Law