Edward L. Chavez

The case involved charges of first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor against defendant Isaac Marquez, based on allegations that he digitally penetrated his wife's granddaughter when she was between ages six and eight. At trial, the district court admitted evidence of other uncharged sexual misconduct by the defendant against the same victim under the common-law lewd and lascivious disposition exception to Rule 11-404(B)(1)'s bar on propensity evidence. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that this exception has been abrogated and that evidence offered to show a lewd disposition toward the alleged victim is inadmissible propensity evidence unless it qualifies for a nonpropensity purpose under Rule 11-404(B)(2). The court therefore vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial, with instructions that any prior-acts evidence must first be found admissible under the rule's nonpropensity exceptions and Rule 11-403.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Arrendondo, the defendant was tried and convicted of first-degree murder, assault with intent to commit a violent felony, negligent child abuse, tampering with evidence, and shooting at a dwelling after he shot and killed the victim, claiming self-defense while witnesses testified the victim was unarmed. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed claims regarding the denial of a fifth continuance to test jacket evidence, sufficiency of the evidence for several convictions, ineffective assistance of counsel, and an unpreserved speedy trial argument. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance due to prior delays and lack of relevance shown, that sufficient evidence supported the murder, shooting, and some other convictions but not the child abuse or tampering counts, and that the assault conviction lacked proper jury instructions on the underlying felony. It therefore affirmed the murder and remaining convictions, reversed the child abuse and tampering convictions for insufficient evidence, reversed the assault conviction for remand on a new trial, and found no fundamental error on the speedy trial issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the estate and family of Daniel Gutierrez suing Meteor Monument after its employee Dean Durand caused Gutierrez's death in a drunk-driving accident; the claims included liability under New Mexico's Dram Shop Act for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person and negligent supervision of Durand as an alcoholic employee. The trial court entered verdicts for the plaintiffs on both claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed the dram shop verdict for insufficient evidence and ordered a new trial on negligent supervision due to confusing jury instructions on scope of employment. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the dram shop verdict without identifying the specific server and that Meteor could not obtain a new trial because it had invited the jury-instruction error in the face of established case law on negligent supervision.

torts & liabilitylabor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

This case concerns challenges to New Mexico's state legislative redistricting plans following the 2010 census, consolidated before the district court on remand from the New Mexico Supreme Court. The core dispute involved whether the plans complied with the federal Voting Rights Act's Section 2 requirements for creating or maintaining effective Hispanic majority-minority districts, particularly District 63 in the Clovis area. On remand, the district court interpreted the Supreme Court's directive to place the burden on parties seeking to alter such districts and concluded that the record did not support findings that Voting Rights Act protections were no longer needed. The court therefore adopted a final plan that preserved District 63's boundaries as closely as possible to the existing configuration, resulting in a 57% Hispanic voting-age population in that district while adjusting neighboring District 67.

electionscivil rights

In this criminal case, defendant Curtis Harper faced fifteen counts of criminal sexual penetration of a child under thirteen. The district court set a deadline for the State to make the victim and examining doctor available for interviews and later excluded both witnesses after the deadline passed, prompting the State to concede it could not proceed to trial. The Court of Appeals reversed the exclusion of the victim but upheld it for the doctor. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the district court in full, holding that witness exclusion requires an intentional violation of a court order, prejudice to the opposing party, and consideration of lesser sanctions; here, the record showed no prejudice to Harper, no intentional refusal by the State (particularly regarding payment issues for the doctor), and no exploration of alternative remedies.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a dispute over a ten-acre parcel in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, that the City had obtained a recorded drainage easement over in 1985 when a subdivision plat was filed; later owners Cloudview Estates sought to subdivide the land and vacate the easement, but the City refused, asserting it held fee title or an unrecorded perpetual open-space interest. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that Cloudview was a good-faith purchaser whose ownership was subject only to the recorded drainage easement, because the plat did not dedicate the parcel for public use under NMSA 1978, Section 3-20-11, the City lacked color of title for adverse possession, and the recorded easement extinguished any unrecorded claims. The Court also ruled that the City's denial of the vacation request was arbitrary because it relied on the unrecorded interest, but it remanded the subdivision application to the City and stayed Cloudview's inverse-condemnation claim as premature. Finally, the Court found genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the City's unjust-enrichment claim against the original subdivider Amrep.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether defendant Albert Jose Ramirez knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a guilty plea to first-degree premeditated murder, battery upon a peace officer, and assault upon a police officer in New Mexico district court. After the defendant expressed confusion during the plea hearing about sentencing, the premeditation element, and his culpability, the district court accepted the plea and later denied his motion to withdraw it. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to confirm on the record that the defendant understood the plea and its consequences, as required by state law, despite clear indications of hesitation. The court therefore reversed the denial of the withdrawal motion and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the appeal of a sixteen-year-old defendant convicted of murder, aggravated burglary, armed robbery, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle after he confessed to shooting a man to steal his car. The New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of the defendant's confession and the shoes seized during booking, finding that he knowingly waived his Miranda rights and the seizure was part of a valid inventory search, and denied a change of venue due to lack of demonstrated jury prejudice. The court vacated the unlawful taking conviction on double jeopardy grounds because it was based on the same conduct as the armed robbery, and remanded for resentencing after requiring a pre-sentence report.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez could remove members of the Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) under her broad constitutional removal power in Article V, Section 5. The court held that she could not and issued a writ of mandamus reinstating two members, John Boyd and Duff Westbrook. The PELRB is a three-member body whose appointments are statutorily limited to one labor nominee, one public-employer nominee, and one neutral jointly selected, with authority to adjudicate labor disputes including those involving the state. The opinion reasoned that the Act's appointment structure precludes at-pleasure service, the Governor's duty to faithfully execute the law requires respecting the mandated balance and continuity, and due process demands an impartial tribunal free from removal threats by a frequent litigant such as the Governor.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Skippings, the defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter after a physical confrontation with his girlfriend ended in her death from a skull fracture sustained when he pushed her off him during the struggle. The district court denied his request for an involuntary manslaughter jury instruction based on either an unlawful act (misdemeanor battery) or criminal negligence, but the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the instruction should have been given because sufficient evidence at trial supported a finding that the killing was accidental or the result of a lesser unlawful act. The court reasoned that a defendant is entitled to instructions on lesser-included offenses when evidence tends to establish them, even if the theories involve inconsistent mental states, and that the request was adequately preserved for appeal. The decision affirmed the Court of Appeals and remanded the case.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an 18-year-old defendant who drove at high speeds, weaved in and out of traffic including into oncoming lanes, struck and injured a jogger on a median, and then struck and killed a pedestrian on a sidewalk before crashing. He was convicted of first-degree depraved mind murder along with other charges, but appealed the murder conviction on grounds of improper jury instructions and insufficient evidence. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred by instructing the jury only on reckless driving rather than the required "extremely reckless" conduct showing indifference to human life, but held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict under the correct standard. As a result, double jeopardy did not bar retrial, and the court remanded for a new trial with revised jury instructions, cautioning that such charges should be used sparingly in vehicular homicide cases.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the six-month rule for bringing a case to trial still applied to defendant Leonard Romero's prosecution for murder and related charges after the rule was eliminated in State v. Savedra for pending cases. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that Romero's case was pending when Savedra was decided, so the six-month rule did not apply, and rejected his claim that retroactive application violated due process or constituted an ex post facto law. The court reasoned that the change was procedural rather than substantive, defendants have no protected interest in procedural rules, and the court has authority to apply such rule changes retroactively or prospectively. The case was remanded for consideration of Romero's speedy trial rights under the constitutional balancing test.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Gonzales, the State appealed a district court order suppressing methamphetamine evidence found in a vehicle after a traffic stop for a window-tint violation that officers had arranged as a pretext to pursue a narcotics investigation prompted by a confidential informant's tip. The trial court initially intended to uphold the stop under federal precedent allowing pretextual stops but, after the Court of Appeals issued State v. Ochoa, reconsidered and granted suppression on the ground that the stop violated Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Supreme Court interpreted Ochoa to require an objective inquiry into whether the real reason for the stop was supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, and held that the trial court had not conducted this analysis because Ochoa had not yet been published at the time of the suppression hearing. The Court therefore reversed the suppression order and remanded for a hearing consistent with Ochoa.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether the New Mexico State Records Administrator had a mandatory duty to publish environmental regulations adopted by the Environmental Improvement Board and Water Quality Control Commission after they were properly filed, or whether a request from the Environment Department—based on a new Governor's executive order suspending rulemaking—could delay publication. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the Administrator must publish the regulations and issued a writ of mandamus directing immediate publication. The court reasoned that the EIB and WQCC function independently of the Governor and Environment Department Secretary, that the executive order applied only to rules under the Governor's direct authority, and that the Records Center's own rules required timely publication of regulations submitted by the proper issuing authorities.

environmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved the 2005 murder of Jeff Armstrong during a robbery at his apartment, where defendant Jose Pedro Garcia was convicted by a jury of first-degree felony murder, armed robbery, felon in possession of a firearm, and tampering with evidence. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the convictions for felony murder, felon in possession of a firearm, and tampering with evidence, finding sufficient evidence supported the verdicts and rejecting claims of error regarding a pro se motion, severance, admissibility of statements, and ineffective assistance of counsel. However, the Court vacated the armed robbery conviction, holding that under New Mexico law the underlying predicate felony must be vacated rather than merely merged when it supports a felony murder conviction to avoid double jeopardy violations. The decision emphasized that a conviction occurs upon the jury verdict being accepted and recorded, separate from sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

This case concerned whether a law enforcement officer violated constitutional search protections by cutting open opaque bundles inside a package that private citizens had already opened, without first obtaining a warrant. The defendant faced drug possession charges after the officer discovered what he believed to be marijuana. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that Article II, Section 10 of the state constitution requires an officer to obtain a warrant before exceeding the scope of a private search absent an applicable exception, unlike the more permissive federal Fourth Amendment approach. The court concluded that no exception justified the officer's actions, so the evidence was properly suppressed by the district court, reversing the Court of Appeals and affirming the suppression order.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a young child struck in the head by a baseball during pre-game batting practice while in a picnic area beyond the left field wall at Isotopes Stadium, resulting in a skull fracture; the parents sued the City of Albuquerque and the Albuquerque Isotopes for negligence. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants under the traditional "baseball rule," limiting the duty to providing screening behind home plate. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, adopting a limited-duty rule under which stadium owners/occupants must exercise ordinary care not to increase the inherent risk of projectiles leaving the field of play, symmetrical to the spectator's duty to exercise ordinary care for that risk. The court remanded for further proceedings because the defendants had not made a prima facie showing of compliance with this duty in the multi-purpose picnic area without warning.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case was a class action lawsuit by cigarette purchasers against major tobacco companies alleging a conspiracy to fix cigarette prices from 1993 to 2000. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that federal antitrust law, which governs here, requires more than evidence of parallel price increases in an oligopoly to prove an agreement; plaintiffs must also provide evidence tending to exclude the possibility of independent conduct by the defendants. Plaintiffs failed to meet this standard, as their evidence of pricing patterns and other factors was consistent with lawful independent business decisions.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Sims, a defendant was found asleep or passed out in his parked vehicle in a commercial lot with the keys on the passenger seat; after failing sobriety tests with high blood alcohol levels, he was charged with DWI under a theory of actual physical control. The metropolitan and district courts, and a majority of the Court of Appeals, upheld the charge on the ground that the defendant could have roused himself, retrieved the keys, and driven away. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was actually exercising physical control over the vehicle with the intent to drive in a manner that posed a real danger. The Court reasoned that the Legislature had removed the phrase “actual physical control” from the DWI statute and intended to prohibit only conduct creating an immediate risk of harm, not mere passive occupancy or potential future driving, requiring instead a totality-of-the-circumstances assessment rather than speculation.

criminal law

This case involves royalty owners suing an oil and gas company for underpaying royalties by deducting costs to place natural gas in marketable condition, brought as a class action. The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the district court's certification of the class under Rule 1-023(B)(2) and (B)(3), following a similar prior decision in Davis v. Devon Energy Corp. The court affirmed certification under Rule 1-023(B)(2) because the defendant acted on grounds generally applicable to the class and the requested declaratory and injunctive relief was integral to the claims, regardless of additional damages requests. It also held that prior litigation did not preclude the class claims and that New Mexico law applies without needing a detailed choice-of-law analysis, while remanding the Rule 1-023(B)(3) certification to assess whether the marketable condition rule applies as a matter of law or based on contract intent.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure