Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

James Palenick was hired by the City of Rio Rancho to serve as City Manager. This appeal stemmed from his termination and whether Palenick was estopped from suing the City for breach of contract based on an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). The Supreme Court found that there was substantial evidence to support the district court's finding that Palenick waived his right to sue on the contract claim. View "Palenick v. City of Rio Rancho" on Justia Law

Leonard and Kay Nettles purchased property and built a home in a remote subdivision in Rio Arriba County known as Ticonderoga. At the time of the Nettles purchase, the lots in Ticonderoga were subject to various covenants, and the subdivision was governed by a Homeowners’ Association. The Homeowners’ Association amended some of the covenants and its articles of incorporation. One of the amendments changed the definition of “common easements.” The new definition no longer included all roads in Ticonderoga, but specific roads that led to common recreation areas. The new definition now excluded the road that served specifically Nettles’ home as well as some other roads, but still included those roads that led to the majority of homesites in Ticonderoga. As a result of the changed definition, Nettles was still required to pay common assessments to fund the maintenance costs of these other roads, but was now required to maintain the their road privately, along with a few other owners of undeveloped lots on that road, at Nettles’ own expense. A second amendment allegedly diluted Nettles’ voting rights in the Homeowners’ Association. Nettles filed suit against the Homeowners’ Association. The Association filed for summary judgment, claiming that all the actions taken were explicitly authorized by the governing documents of the Association. Nettles countered, claiming that the amendments violated New Mexico law because the amendments were not uniform. The district court granted summary judgment for the Association. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while Nettles failed to create a triable question on uniformity, the reasonableness of the amendment in this case should have been tried and not disposed of through summary judgment. View "Nettles v. Ticonderoga Owners' Assn., Inc." on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Aaron Ramos of violating a protection order. He appealed, arguing that he was refused a jury instruction that would have required the jury to find that he had “knowingly” violated the protection order. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision not to give the “knowingly” instruction. The Supreme Court read the language and structure of the statute at issue and its legislative policy to conclude that it was reversible error to deny Defendant's requested instruction. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant Orlando Torrez was convicted of felony murder after a jury rejected his claim of self-defense. Defendant raised several issues on appeal: (1) whether there were double jeopardy violations; (2) whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions; (3) the alleged denial of process when a witness failed to appear; and (4) the insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Finding none of Defendant's claims of error persuasive, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Mexico v. Torrez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for trafficking an imitation controlled substance (here, baking soda packaged to look like cocaine). The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court had to reconcile the application of the state Imitation Controlled Substances Act (which allowed a jury to consider prior convictions related to controlled substances or fraud), and the Rules of Evidence, which restrict the use of prior bad acts (including criminal convictions). To avoid a conflict, the Court held that any evidence of prior convictions referred to by the statute must also be admissible under the rules of evidence. In this case, Defendant's prior convictions did not satisfy Rule 404(B), and therefore their admission into evidence was made in error. The Court found the admission harmless, however, and affirmed Defendant's convictions. The case was remanded to correct a sentencing error. View "New Mexico v. Serna" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Nina Strausberg signed an arbitration agreement as a mandatory condition of her admission to Defendants' nursing home. Despite having signed the arbitration agreement, Plaintiff sued the home its operators alleging negligent care. The issue before the Supreme Court centered on which party has the burden to prove that a contract is unconscionable and therefore, unenforceable. The district court found that Plaintiff had failed to prove unconscionability and, therefore, granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the district court erred by placing the burden on Plaintiff to prove unconscionability. The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that Plaintiff had the burden to prove that the agreement was unconscionable because unconscionability is an affirmative defense to contract enforcement, and under settled principles of New Mexico law, the party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of proof. Furthermore, the Court held that federal law preempted the Court of Appeals' holding because it treats nursing home arbitration agreements differently than other contracts. View "Strausberg v. Laurel Healthcare Providers" on Justia Law

In a State Police operation called "Yerba Buena 2006," the state indicted 72-year old Defendant Norman Davis for possessing eight ounces or more of marijuana, and possession of miscellaneous drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia seized. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his home. Finding substantial evidence that defendant voluntarily consented to the search, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of defendant's motion to suppress. View "New Mexico v. Davis" on Justia Law

Respondent Magistrate Judge James Naranjo placed a phone call on behalf of his stepson Albert Hernandez who was a party in a child-support enforcement proceeding assigned to another judge. After Mr. Hernandez was jailed for nonpayment of support, respondent called the judge presiding over Hernandez's case stating Hernandez was not a flight risk, and requested that Hernandez's bond be reduced, or that he be released from custody. As a result, the judge in Hernandez's case recused himself. The Judicial Standards Commission filed charges against respondent for willful misconduct, and recommended the imposition of discipline. The Supreme Court granted the Commission's petition and imposed a ninety-day suspension (60 days deferred), and a public censure. View "In the Matter of Naranjo" on Justia Law

Defendants Christopher Gurule and Linda Davis were charged with criminal sexual penetration of a minor, criminal sexual contact of a minor, kidnapping and sexual exploitation of a minor in 2007. A special agent with the Attorney General's Office's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force applied for a search warrant believing that she uncovered fifty-eight files made available on a peer-to-peer network from an IP address associated with defendants. Defendants objected to the search and seizure of a digital camera, admission of the testimony of the mother of the alleged victim, and testimony of defendant Davis' son, who prepared to testify he saw his mother viewing child pornography on her computer. The district court granted suppression of the challenged evidence. The State filed an interlocutory appeal to challenge those evidentiary rulings. Upon review, the Supreme Court reversed with respect to testimony of defendant Davis' son, but affirmed the district court in all other respects. View "New Mexico v. Gurule" on Justia Law

Defendants Lester and Carol Boyse were charged with fifty-two counts of cruelty to animals. They sought to suppress evidence discovered by investigators because the warrant was approved by a magistrate judge via telephone and not in person. The district court denied their motion. On appeal, the Supreme Court analyzed the practice of telephonic approval of search warrants against the strictures of the state constitution. Upon review, the Court concluded that a "showing" to a magistrate can be made through audible or other sensory means, in addition to being made in person. Therefore, the Court held that as a matter of law, telephonic approval of search warrants was constitutional, and affirmed the district court's denial of defendants' motion to suppress evidence. View "New Mexico v. Boyse" on Justia Law