Mack Easley

The case involved a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the personal representatives of a deceased worker against his employer, Kent Nowlin Construction Company, after the worker died in a job-related accident. The employer's workers' compensation carrier had paid medical and funeral expenses but denied benefits to the worker's dependents because they resided in Mexico, and the jury awarded $175,000 in the tort action. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the verdict, holding that the New Mexico Workmen's Compensation Act provides the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries and deaths. The court reasoned that the Act's plain language abolishes all other causes of action for covered employees, including wrongful death claims, and that the statutory bar on benefits to non-resident dependents does not create an exception allowing alternative remedies.

labor & employmenttorts & liability

The case concerned numerous complaints of judicial misconduct against Fourth Judicial District Judge Donaldo A. Martinez, including countermanding orders from another judge for the immediate transport of convicted prisoners to the state penitentiary, barring the district attorney from performing statutory duties in children's court cases, and issuing a temporary restraining order on behalf of his son without required notice, hearing, or compliance with procedural rules. The Judicial Standards Commission investigated, held hearings, and recommended permanent removal from office for willful misconduct under article VI, section 32 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the finding of guilt based on clear and convincing evidence of the three principal charges but imposed a penalty of temporary suspension for sixty days along with forfeiture of salary and payment of costs, rather than removal. Many additional publicized allegations were dropped for lack of proof and were not considered. On rehearing, the court denied the motion and confirmed the suspension starting January 17, 1983.

criminal lawprocedure

In Three Rivers Land Co., Inc. v. Maddoux, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and fraud seeking damages after an earlier lawsuit for specific performance of land purchase and lease contracts was dismissed. The trial court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss based on res judicata, but on interlocutory appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed. The court held that res judicata barred the second action because both cases arose from the same transaction involving the land contracts, and a judgment in equity precludes a subsequent action at law for damages from the same facts, with no applicable exception for the prior denial of amendment.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a lawsuit by individuals injured or killed in a highway accident against the New Mexico State Highway Commission and the State, alleging negligence in the design, construction, and maintenance of the road. The defendants sought dismissal for lack of timely written notice as required by the Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court of New Mexico ruled that an accident report prepared by the State Police did not satisfy the "actual notice" exception to the written notice requirement for the Highway Commission or the State. The court reasoned that the statute requires actual notice to the specific governmental entity alleged to have caused the harm, rather than to any state agency, to fulfill the purpose of allowing the potentially liable agency to prepare for possible litigation.

torts & liabilityprocedure

In State v. Chavez, the defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of first-degree murder, aggravated battery, and unlawful carrying of a firearm in a liquor establishment. The trial court, on its own motion, granted a new trial on the first three counts under Rule 45, citing the interest of justice after noting conflicting evidence and receiving a juror letter, but without specifying the exact grounds. The Court of Appeals held that the State lacked standing to appeal as it was not an aggrieved party under the New Mexico Constitution. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the State may appeal an order granting a new trial because it has a strong interest in enforcing a lawful verdict, and that the trial court must fully set forth the grounds for its sua sponte ruling under Rule 45(d) to permit effective appellate review for abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for the trial court to enter an order stating its reasons, after which the parties could appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., the case involved a dispute over the validity of a 1973 uranium supply agreement, prior New Mexico court judgments rejecting arbitration, and a subsequent California arbitration award favorable to General Atomic. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Santa Fe district court's ruling that voided the arbitration award and upheld the earlier judgments for United Nuclear. The court held that the U.S. Supreme Court's Felter decisions did not preclude state-court proceedings on the merits or application of res judicata to determine there was no enforceable arbitration agreement, that the Federal Arbitration Act did not bar voiding the award, and that supplemental declaratory relief was available under New Mexico law even pending appeal.

business & regulatoryprocedurefederal power

This case concerns defendants charged in metropolitan court with driving while under the influence who sought a writ requiring the state to preserve and provide a separate breath alcohol sample for independent laboratory testing whenever breath test results are used at trial. The district court granted a permanent writ prohibiting trials without such samples, but the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed that ruling and quashed the writ. The court found no due process violation under Brady v. Maryland because the record contained no substantial evidence that captured breath samples could be accurately retested; expert testimony showed that trapping devices are less accurate than direct testing and frequently produce discrepant results ranging from 10-50 percent. The opinion concluded that the proposed retesting technique was still in developmental stages and had not gained acceptance in the scientific community sufficient for admissibility.

criminal lawprocedure

The case was a divorce action in which the wife appealed the trial court's rulings on division of community property, specifically its determination that the husband's U.S. Civil Service medical retirement benefits were his separate property, along with issues involving a personal injury settlement, child support, and attorney fees. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the trial court on the classification of the retirement benefits and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the benefits constitute community property because, unlike the railroad and military retirement benefits at issue in Hisquierdo and McCarty, the governing federal statute (5 U.S.C. § 8345(j)(1)) expressly permits their payment to a former spouse pursuant to a divorce decree or property settlement, indicating Congress did not intend preemption of state family law. The court dismissed the wife's substantial-evidence challenge for failure to include germane exhibits in the record on appeal, remanded child support for reconsideration in light of the benefits ruling, and affirmed the denial of attorney fees given the parties' similar incomes.

family lawfederal powerproperty

In State v. Snedeker, the New Mexico Supreme Court addressed whether an affidavit for a search warrant established probable cause to search the home of a former university president for ammunition, firearms, and related supplies in a case charging evasion of gross receipts taxes and making false public vouchers. The trial court suppressed evidence from the initial search and a follow-up warrant, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court reversed both lower courts. The Court held that a common-sense reading of the affidavit as a whole provided probable cause to believe the items constituted evidence of a crime and were located at the residence, based on details about university purchases, lack of accounting in records, and the defendant's involvement.

criminal lawproceduretaxes

In State v. Reams, defendants were charged with unlawful distribution of quaalude and conspiracy to distribute under New Mexico's Controlled Substances Act. The district court dismissed the charges, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the Drug and Cosmetic Act more applicable. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the Controlled Substances Act properly governs the charges because it is the appropriate legislation for the prohibited acts, with no need for express legislative authority to apply its penalty provisions to administratively scheduled drugs. The court adopted the dissenting analysis from the Court of Appeals on the choice of statute and remanded to reinstate the charges.

criminal law

The case Tomlinson v. State involved a defendant convicted of three counts of kidnapping and one count of robbery who was sentenced immediately after the jury verdict without a prior sentencing hearing or opportunity to speak. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals decision, holding that Section 31-18-15.1 requires a sentencing hearing where the trial judge must allow the defendant to present mitigating or aggravating circumstances before imposing sentence. The court reasoned that the statute's mandatory language extends the common law doctrine of allocutus to non-capital felonies, and failure to provide this opportunity invalidates the sentence. The case was remanded for new sentencing proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Sisneros, the defendant pled guilty to criminal sexual penetration and kidnapping after off-the-record discussions in which the trial judge indicated an intent to impose probation; the judge later resentenced him to prison following a state motion to reconsider. The Court of Appeals had reversed the second sentence on grounds that it breached a plea agreement and ordered reinstatement of the original probation sentence. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the procedural holding that the Attorney General failed to timely and specifically contest the key facts in the docketing statement, which are therefore treated as true under the summary calendar rules. It reversed the remedy portion, however, holding that the Court of Appeals could not reinstate an illegal sentence previously identified by the Supreme Court as such under the law-of-the-case doctrine, and directed that the proper relief is to permit the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved non-Indian defendants indicted for marijuana distribution after a traffic stop on a highway within the Mescalero Apache Reservation led to a search revealing the drugs. The trial court suppressed the evidence due to the initial BIA officer's lack of authority to detain non-Indians or issue state citations, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding the stop and detention lawful. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the reversal on different grounds, holding that state courts have jurisdiction over such offenses by non-Indians on reservations and that the non-cross-commissioned BIA officer could lawfully detain the defendants for up to ten minutes under the Assimilative Crimes Act to allow a cross-commissioned officer to issue a citation, as the stop was valid and the brief detention reasonable. The court reasoned that federal law incorporates state traffic offenses on Indian land and that the officer's actions did not violate Fourth Amendment standards.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

The case involved the New Mexico Human Services Department petitioning to terminate Mrs. Minjares's parental rights to her infant daughter Jane Doe on grounds of neglect after finding the family in unsanitary living conditions and the mother failing to follow medical instructions or provide adequate supervision. The trial court granted the petition, the Court of Appeals reversed for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court to affirm the termination. The court held that statutory requirements for termination were met because the evidence showed the conditions causing neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite the Department's reasonable efforts to assist through service plans and homemaker support. The decision relied on testimony about the mother's limited progress over years, her inability to control or supervise children as shown by other delinquent siblings, and the child's established bond with foster parents.

family law

In this case, a trial judge in a penitentiary riot-related murder prosecution issued an order restricting media coverage—prohibiting publication of jurors' names, barring photographs of the defendant in the judicial complex, and requiring the media to preserve articles, tapes, and transcripts for ten days after the verdict—without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard to the press. The New Mexico Press Association and Broadcasters Association petitioned the New Mexico Supreme Court for relief from the order. The court held that the media had standing to challenge the restrictions and that the case was not moot despite the defendant's conviction. It ruled that the restrictions constituted prior restraints on the press that violated the First Amendment (and parallel state constitutional protections) because they were not supported by evidence showing they were necessary to protect the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The court therefore reversed the trial judge's order in full.

criminal lawfree speechcivil rights

The case involved Montoya, a City of Albuquerque foreman, who was terminated from employment for using the city’s requisition process to obtain two pick-up mirrors and twenty-five pounds of nails for personal use. The City Personnel Board upheld the termination as justified, but the district court reversed that decision and imposed only a sixty-day suspension. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the district court and reinstated the termination, holding that the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The court explained that a reviewing court may not substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative body and is limited to checking whether the agency acted within its authority and on the basis of substantial evidence.

labor & employmentprocedure

In State v. Melendez, the defendant was charged with murder after a shooting incident but claimed self-defense at trial; the jury rejected that defense and convicted him of voluntary manslaughter. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered his discharge, reasoning that the jury's failure to acquit on self-defense meant there was insufficient evidence of provocation to support the lesser charge. The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed the Court of Appeals on that issue, holding that self-defense and provocation are not mutually exclusive and that a jury may reject a complete self-defense claim while still finding sufficient provocation for voluntary manslaughter. The court concluded that Melendez's own testimony about being in fear provided substantial evidence to support the verdict, and it remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Court of Appeals' rulings on three other issues not before it. The opinion clarifies that jury instructions defining provocation to include fear are consistent with this framework.

criminal law

In Federal Land Bank of Wichita v. Burgett, the Bank foreclosed on Burgett's property and purchased it at the sale, after which Burgett petitioned to redeem the property and disputed the amount owed, particularly regarding credits for insurance proceeds received by the Bank due to fire and wind damage and the allowable period for interest. The court affirmed the trial court's calculation that applied the insurance proceeds to reduce the redemption price, concluding that the governing statute grants the trial court discretion to set just terms without specifying a precise method. The court reversed the portion of the judgment awarding interest from the foreclosure judgment date to the sale date, holding that the redemption statute plainly allows interest only from the purchase date forward.

propertyprocedure

Adams sued National Potash Company and the United Steelworkers union after his discharge for insubordination, alleging breach of the collective bargaining agreement by the company and breach of the union's duty of fair representation for missing a contractual deadline that prevented arbitration of his grievance. The company was dismissed from the suit, and the jury returned a verdict for Adams against the union. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the jury instructions did not correctly state the legal standards for unfair representation or damages and that relevant evidence of Adams' work record had been improperly excluded.

labor & employment

The case involved a breach of contract lawsuit filed by Wil-Don Inc. against Jaramillo in magistrate court, where a jury ruled in favor of Jaramillo. After the magistrate court denied a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but ordered a new trial instead, Jaramillo sought a writ of prohibition from the district court, which denied it. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, ruling that magistrate courts possess only limited jurisdiction affirmatively granted by statute and therefore lack authority to set aside a jury verdict. The court interpreted the relevant civil procedure rule as not conferring such power and noted the statutory requirement that the magistrate shall give judgment upon any verdict, remanding for entry of the writ.

procedure