Justia Criminal Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant Curtis Harper was indicted on fifteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a child under the age of thirteen. During a docket call, the district court learned for the first time that not all witness interviews had been conducted, including those of the alleged victim and the doctor who examined her. The district court rescheduled the trial and verbally instructed the attorneys to complete the witness interviews. During a subsequent hearing, because neither the victim nor the doctor were interviewed before the court-imposed deadline, the district court prohibited the State from calling either of them as witnesses. The State agreed with Defendant that it could not make a prima facie case against him if these two witnesses were not allowed to testify. The State appealed the district court's exclusion of the two witnesses. The Court of Appeals unanimously reversed the district court regarding the victim, concluding that the State made efforts to comply with the district court's request and Defendant was not prejudiced by the State's failure to make the victim available for an interview within the time frame established by the district court. Because exclusion of witnesses requires an intentional violation of a court order, prejudice to the opposing party, and consideration of less severe sanctions, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals with respect to the victim and reversed with respect to the doctor. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court’s order precluding the victim and the doctor from testifying at trial and remanded the case for further proceedings.

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.

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 Defendantâs remaining issue. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

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. 

Carol Sloan, a New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) Commissioner, was convicted and subsequently sentenced for aggravated battery and burglary. That same day, the Attorney General filed a petition for a writ of quo warranto asking the Supreme Court remove Ms. Sloan from office because of her felony convictions. Although Ms. Sloan did not dispute that she was convicted and sentenced for two felony offenses, she nonetheless maintained that those convictions did not disqualify her from continuing to hold public office until the expiration of the term for which she was elected. Ultimately the Court found that because Ms. Sloan was a convicted felon, forfeiture of her office was automatic.