Justia New Mexico Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

This appeal involved a loss-of-consortium claim brought by Plaintiff Bill Wachocki (Bill), the adult brother of Jason Wachocki (Jason). Twenty-two-year-old Jason was killed when his vehicle was struck by a speeding van driven by Willie Hiley (Willie), a corrections officer at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Bill argued his loss- of-consortium claim was "improperly foreclosed" by the application of the “mutual dependence” standard which was originally developed for spousal-type relationships. Upon review, the Supreme Court clarified that recovery for loss of consortium may extend to sibling relationships; however, the facts presented in this case did not exhibit the mutual dependence required for recovery. The Court affirmed the appellate court's conclusion. View "Wachocki v. Bernalillo County Sheriff's Dept." 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

On December 12, 2002, Defendant Dr. Steven Wenrich delivered Plaintiff Cynthia Provencio's fourth child via caesarean section. Prior to surgery, Mrs. Provencio consented to Defendant contemporaneously performing a tubal ligation procedure on her sole fallopian tube because she did not wish to have additional children. After completing the surgeries, Defendant sent a portion of what he believed was ligated fallopian tube to a laboratory for analysis. The resulting pathology report revealed that the tissue Defendant had ligated was ligament, not fallopian tube, and Plaintiff still could conceive children. Since the Supreme Court issued "Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez," (111 N.M. 336 (1991)) more than 20 years ago, the Court has not had an opportunity to clarify whether a doctor who negligently performs a tubal ligation procedure, but who then informs the patient of her continued fertility, may be sued for the future costs of raising a subsequently conceived child to the age of majority. Upon review, the Court held that those particular damages are only available when a doctor has breached a duty to inform. In this case, the Court of Appeals held otherwise, concluding that notice of continued fertility, or lack thereof, was merely a factor for the jury to consider as questions of causation and comparative fault. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court's dismissal of this action. View "Provencio v. Wenrich" on Justia Law

In 1985, at the behest of the City of Rio Rancho, Amrep Southwest Inc. recorded a plat for the Vista Hills West Unit 1 (VHWU1) subdivision, granting the City a drainage easement over ten acres identified as 'Parcel F.' In 2004, Amrep sold Parcel F to the Mares Group in fee simple, subject to the drainage easement. Mares in turn sold it to Cloudview Estates in fee simple, subject to the same recorded drainage easement. Cloudview asked the City to vacate the drainage easement and subdivide the parcel into thirty lots. The City declined because it found that the City and Amrep had originally intended to perpetually dedicate Parcel F as open space, and as such, had a claim to the property's title. The issue before the Supreme Court was: even if the City and Amrep intended Parcel F to be open space, what effect did the recorded plat designating Parcel F as a drainage easement have on Cloudview's subsequent purchase of Parcel F? Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that Cloudview was a good faith purchaser and the plat did not specifically designate Parcel F for public use. The recorded plat unambiguously granted the City an easement for the specific purpose of drainage, thereby extinguishing any unrecorded interests and relieving Cloudview from its duty to diligently investigate whether the City had other adverse claims to the property title. The Court ruled in favor of Cloudview. View "City of Rio Rancho v. Amrep SW, Inc. " 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

This case consolidated appeals that challenged the Public Regulation Commission's (PRC) effort to comply with the Efficient Use of Energy Act (EUEA).  The EUEA was amended by the Legislature, requiring the PRC to identify and remove regulatory disincentives to a public utility's implementation of energy efficiency programs.  To comply with this legislative mandate, the PRC issued a Final Order amending its Energy Efficiency Rules.  The Attorney General (AG) and the New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers (NMIEC) separately appealed the PRC's Final Order, challenging the Final Order on several grounds.  The Supreme Court consolidated both appeals, and after reviewing the record, annulled and vacated the PRC's Final Order. View "New Mexico Att'y General v. Public Regulatory Commission" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in this case to review a decision that upheld a district court's order compelling arbitration of Petitioner Kim Rivera's claims against a title loan lender, American General Financial Services, Inc., and its affiliated insurance agency, American Security Insurance Company.  The Court based its reversal of those decisions on its holding that the arbitration provisions in the title loan contract cannot be enforced because the involvement of the now-unavailable National Arbitration Forum (NAF) to arbitrate contract disputes was an integral requirement of the parties' agreement.  Although no longer technically necessary to the Court’s disposition of this appeal, the Court corrected the analysis in the published opinion of the Court of Appeals that imposed an overly narrow construction on New Mexico's unconscionability jurisprudence and misapplied the Supreme Court's holding in “Cordova v. World Finance Corp. of N.M.,” 146 N.M. 256, 208 P.3d 901. View "Rivera v. American General Financial" on Justia Law

Through its opinion in this case, the Supreme Court addressed an exception in the New Mexico Workers' Compensation Act (the Act) that permitted compensation for injuries incurred in travel by employees when those injuries "[arose] out of and in the course of employment." Eloy Doporto, Jr., Mike Lucas, Jose Turrubiates, and Pete Rodriguez (collectively, the Workers), employed by Permian Drilling Corporation (Permian) and insured by American Home Assurance, were involved in an automobile accident while traveling to their work site, resulting in the death of Doporto and injuries to the others.  Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the injuries suffered by the Workers arose out of and in the course of their employment because the travel was mutually beneficial to employees and employer and the Workers encountered special hazards unique to their employment while traveling, thus rendering the Workers "traveling employees" whose injuries are compensable under the Act. View "Rodriguez v. Permian Drilling Corp." on Justia Law

This case came before the Supreme Court on a petition invoking its emergency original jurisdiction to review the indefinite detention of thirty-two courtroom spectators (Petitioners) who had all been summarily ordered to jail for contempt of court by Respondent Judge Sam Sanchez after a contentious hearing evolved into a courtroom disruption created by some, but not all, of the Petitioners. The events that took place immediately after Respondent recessed the court were preserved in a digital audio recording. The noise level in the courtroom increased as the voices of the defendant and some of the spectators became louder.  Thirty-nine seconds after the bailiff first told the crowd to rise and while audible statements were still being made, Respondent yelled, "That's enough! I'll hold every one of you in contempt and jail you all!" Upon review of the trial record, the Court found that the record reflects that whoever had been acting in any disruptive or disobedient manner had ceased doing so immediately upon Respondent's oral pronouncement that he was sending everyone to jail. "Petitioners clearly were jailed for the past behavior of one or more of them and not as a coercive measure to stop any continuing disorderly or disobedient behavior. Respondent lawfully could have initiated indirect contempt proceedings against those individuals whom he had reason to believe were participating in disruptive or defiant conduct, but he was required to honor the procedures of the law and the limits of constitutional due process."  In this case, the Court concluded he "utterly" failed to do so. The Court held that Respondent's convictions and jail sentences of Petitioners were an unlawful abuse of judicial power requiring the Court's order that Petitioners be released from jail and that their criminal contempt convictions be vacated.  View "Concha v. Sanchez" on Justia Law