Pamela B. Minzner

The case involved a school district that had paid a water utility company to construct a water line extension as a required contribution in aid of construction under public utility regulations to obtain service for a new school, and later filed a condemnation action to take ownership of that property. The lower courts ruled that the district must pay the utility the fair market value of the water line as just compensation without any deduction for the prior contribution, and the Supreme Court affirmed. The Court reasoned that the contribution was a separate contractual obligation for obtaining water service, not a prepayment that could be credited under the eminent domain statute, and that the property belonged to the utility such that deducting the amount would violate constitutional just compensation requirements.

propertyprocedurebusiness & regulatory

In this case, plaintiff Christina Boradiansky sued her insurer, State Farm, after being injured in a car accident caused by a government employee driving a government-owned vehicle. She sought benefits under her uninsured/underinsured motorist policies, which totaled over $2.5 million, but State Farm denied the claim based on a policy exclusion for government-owned vehicles and limits under the Tort Claims Act. The federal district court certified two questions to the New Mexico Supreme Court regarding whether the exclusion violated public policy under the Uninsured Motorist Act and whether the plaintiff was legally entitled to recover damages exceeding the Tort Claims Act caps. The court held that the government-owned vehicle exclusion was unenforceable as it created an unintended gap in coverage contrary to the Act's purpose of protecting insured drivers, and that the plaintiff was legally entitled to recover under the Act because the caps applied only to direct claims against the government, not to UM claims. The decision drew on precedents interpreting similar exclusions and the meaning of legal entitlement to recover in the context of immunity statutes.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

In this case, the State appealed from a Court of Appeals decision remanding convictions of Anthony Romero for aggravated battery, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and bribery of a witness against his wife, who later died. The New Mexico Supreme Court addressed whether two of the victim's out-of-court statements were inadmissible under the Confrontation Clause as testimonial hearsay per Crawford v. Washington and Davis v. Washington, whether any error was harmless, and whether the defendant forfeited his confrontation rights by causing the victim's unavailability. The court held that the statements were testimonial and their admission erroneous but affirmed the remand after determining the forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine did not apply based on prior precedent requiring specific intent to silence the witness. The decision focused on applying the Sixth Amendment standards to domestic violence statements made to police.

criminal lawcivil rights

In State v. Salazar, the defendant was convicted of criminal sexual penetration of a minor under thirteen after a trial in which his unopposed motions for continuance were denied, leaving his newly assigned counsel with limited preparation time amid issues like missing discovery and witness interviews. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance. The core reasoning was that the court should have applied the Torres factors to assess preparation needs rather than relying primarily on the defendant's speedy trial demand and docket management, and that the denial prejudiced the defendant's ability to present a defense.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Hunter, the defendant was charged with three counts of custodial interference under New Mexico law after his ex-wife sought to enforce a modified Missouri custody order granting her primary custody of their children. The defendant entered a no-contest plea but later moved to withdraw it, arguing that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because his counsel provided inadequate advice, including discouraging discussion of defenses like lack of jurisdiction over an unregistered out-of-state order and failing to pursue a conditional plea. The district court denied the motion, but on appeal the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the plea must be withdrawn. The court reasoned that counsel's advice was deficient in not recognizing potential defenses or exploring alternatives, rendering the plea involuntary, and remanded for further proceedings. The opinion also noted broader concerns about using criminal proceedings to resolve custody disputes without prior civil enforcement of the order.

criminal lawfamily lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between Doña Ana Mutual Domestic Water Consumers Association and Moongate Water Company, Inc. over whether Doña Ana could construct water storage tanks and lines to serve an area east of Interstate 25 near Las Cruces that Moongate claimed as its exclusive service territory. The New Mexico Public Regulation Commission ruled that Moongate had the exclusive right to provide water service in the disputed area under NMSA 1978, Section 62-9-1 and barred Doña Ana from proceeding with the East Mesa Project. Doña Ana appealed, challenging the standard applied by the PRC, the sufficiency of the evidence, the PRC's jurisdiction, and its authority to condition or prohibit construction. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the PRC's final order, holding that the PRC used a reasonable standard to evaluate interference with an existing utility's service or system, that the order was supported by substantial evidence, and that the PRC acted within its statutory authority and jurisdiction.

business & regulatory