Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

In this case, the district court rejected defendant Juan Pinon-Garcia's request for it to review a municipal court dismissal for an abuse of discretion. Defendant sought dismissal of the case against him because the government's key witness failed to appear for the scheduled trial. The district court also declined to independently consider defendant's motion to dismiss because the court believed it was compelled to proceed directly to a trial de novo. Because the right of appeal from courts not of record is the right to a trial or hearing de novo in district court, the Supreme Court concluded the district court must make an independent determination of the merits of the pretrial motion. "If district courts are not permitted to review a lower court’s grant or denial of potentially dispositive pretrial motions on appeal, the power of lower courts to grant relief when constitutional safeguards and procedural rules, such as speedy trial, double jeopardy, or discovery rules, are violated would be meaningless." The case was remanded to the district court for consideration of the motion to dismiss. View "City of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia" 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

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

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

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 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

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

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

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