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

This case involved a defendant convicted after a jury trial of felony murder, aggravated burglary, and multiple counts of tampering with evidence stemming from the killing of a victim in his home, during which the defendant claimed self-defense but delayed reporting it to police. The New Mexico Supreme Court considered the defendant's claims that the prosecutor's closing argument improperly invited the jury to infer guilt from his pre-Miranda silence about the self-defense story, violating due process, as well as double jeopardy challenges to his convictions for both felony murder and aggravated burglary and for multiple tampering counts based on the same conduct. The court affirmed the felony murder and aggravated burglary convictions, concluding that the prosecutor's comments did not amount to fundamental error and that the convictions were not based on unitary conduct, while remanding to dismiss two tampering convictions because they arose from a single course of conduct contrary to legislative intent under double jeopardy analysis. The opinion also clarified the framework for reviewing unpreserved claims of improper prosecutorial comments on a defendant's silence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Leslie Ulibarri's claims against the State of New Mexico Corrections Academy for violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, including quid pro quo sexual harassment, hostile work environment sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation based on her supervisor's conduct from late 2001. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, dismissing all claims, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the claims were time-barred under the 300-day statute of limitations because the alleged events occurred before January 25, 2002, and Plaintiff filed her complaint on November 21, 2002, with no basis to extend the period. The court also found no genuine issues of material fact supporting the claims and rejected the plaintiff's procedural arguments regarding motions for reconsideration as without merit.

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case involved a homeowner's insurance claim by Cary Battishill for partial damage to a vacant rental house caused by arson. The policy provided all-risk coverage on the dwelling but excluded loss from vandalism and malicious mischief if the dwelling had been vacant for more than 30 consecutive days; the insurer denied the claim on that basis. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that arson falls within the ordinary meaning of vandalism and malicious mischief, so the exclusion applied and barred coverage. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the insurer, reasoning that the policy terms were clear and unambiguous when read as a whole.

property

The case involved defendant Phillip David Lopez, who was convicted by a jury of six counts including robbery, burglary, felony murder, conspiracy to commit first degree murder and robbery, and tampering with evidence, and by the judge of felon in possession of a firearm, arising from the robbery and killing of an elderly victim during a camping trip. The trial court aggravated the sentence for the conspiracy conviction by one-third under NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-15.1 based on aggravating circumstances. On appeal, Lopez argued that the sentence aggravation violated his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial under Blakely v. Washington because it required additional judicial fact-finding beyond the jury verdict, and that some convictions lacked sufficient evidence. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and the aggravated sentence, applying the principles from Blakely and United States v. Booker to conclude that the sentencing statute could be applied consistently with the Sixth Amendment in this context. The core reasoning focused on the distinction between facts found by a jury or admitted by the defendant and the permissible scope of judicial discretion in sentencing under the precedents.

criminal law

The case involved the State appealing the disqualification of the entire Third Judicial District Attorney's Office from prosecuting two defendants (a father and son) on criminal charges, based on the district attorney's prior professional interactions and alleged personal animus toward them when they worked in the office. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision upholding the disqualification order. The court clarified that a prosecutor may be disqualified upon a factual showing of bias that could affect professional judgment, and that disqualification may be imputed to the entire office when there is an appearance of impropriety and no effective screening. On the facts presented—including undisputed prior employment relationships, conflicting testimony about hostility, the district attorney's personal participation in the prosecution, and the absence of screening—the district court did not abuse its discretion in disqualifying the office.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Gina Franco, who was convicted by a jury of possession of a controlled substance and tampering with evidence after police executing a search warrant found crack cocaine outside an apartment bathroom window, with evidence that Franco had handled a similar bottle and run into the bathroom as officers entered. The Court of Appeals reversed the possession conviction, concluding it was a lesser-included offense of tampering and thus violated double jeopardy. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed that holding and reinstated both convictions, ruling that the legislature intended separate punishments for the offenses. The court applied the Swafford test, assuming unitary conduct but finding that the statutes address different social purposes, can be violated independently, and carry equal penalties, indicating no double jeopardy violation under Blockburger analysis.

criminal law

In State v. Ryon, the State appealed the district court's suppression of evidence obtained during a warrantless search of the defendant's home by police responding to a reported stabbing and welfare check. The lower courts had ruled that the community caretaker exception did not apply, relying on prior precedent, and the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the emergency assistance doctrine within that exception. The Court held that officers may enter a home without a warrant or consent in narrowly limited emergency circumstances, even during a criminal investigation, and overruled earlier case law to the extent it barred such entries. Applying the test from State v. Mitchell, the Court determined that the officers' primary motivation appeared to be crime-solving rather than responding to an immediate emergency, and the available information did not establish the required objective reasonableness for the intrusion. The Court therefore affirmed the suppression of the evidence, including a knife found in the home.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved the demotion of Santa Fe Police Department Lieutenant Jerry Archuleta for failing to adequately supervise an officer during a missing child investigation in 2000, which violated department regulations on notification and oversight. Archuleta appealed the demotion to the City's Grievance Review Board and sought broad discovery of other officers' disciplinary records from the prior five years to argue inconsistent punishment, but the hearing officer denied the request on grounds of confidentiality, burden, and limited relevance. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the denial did not violate due process, reasoning that the City's interests in protecting sensitive personnel information and efficient administration outweighed the minimal probative value of the requested records in this context, and that Archuleta had received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld the Board's decision affirming the demotion.

civil rightsprocedurelabor & employment

In State v. Dedman, the State appealed the suppression of a blood alcohol test report in a prosecution for aggravated driving while under the influence, where the district court had excluded the report due to the unavailability of the nurse who drew the blood sample and the Court of Appeals had affirmed on the ground that there was no proof the sample was collected by the veni-puncture method required by regulation. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the testimony of the forensic toxicologist who prepared the report and the officer present during the blood draw provided an adequate foundation for admission under the public records hearsay exception. The Court further concluded that the report was non-testimonial and satisfied the reliability requirements of the Confrontation Clause because it was prepared in the regular course of the Scientific Laboratory Division's business with particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, so the lack of cross-examination of the nurse did not require exclusion. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

In Nava v. City of Santa Fe, a police officer sued her employer, the City of Santa Fe, under the New Mexico Human Rights Act claiming that her supervisor created a hostile work environment through sex-based harassment over nineteen months, including differential treatment, excessive monitoring, and inappropriate assignments. The jury found for the plaintiff and awarded damages, but the district court granted remittitur reducing the award, denied post-judgment interest, and set a lower hourly rate for attorney fees. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the liability verdict, holding that the jury instructions properly covered the elements of a hostile work environment claim under the NMHRA, which parallels Title VII, and that substantial evidence supported the findings of severe or pervasive harassment and the employer's failure to remedy it. The court also upheld the remittitur, the denial of interest based on sovereign immunity, and the fee award as within the trial court's discretion under statutory factors.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to third-degree criminal sexual contact of a minor and later moved to withdraw the plea, claiming he had not been adequately advised of the immigration consequences, which included near-certain deportation under federal law as an aggravated felony. The district court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the New Mexico Supreme Court granted review. The court held that the trial judge's general warning that the plea "could" affect immigration status satisfied due process and Rule 5-303(E)(5), but defense counsel had an affirmative duty to ascertain the defendant's immigration status and provide specific advice about the virtually automatic deportation that would result. Because the record established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel but was insufficient to resolve the claim, the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing on whether the plea should be withdrawn.

criminal lawimmigrationprocedure

In State v. Alvarez-Lopez, the defendant was convicted of aggravated burglary, conspiracy to commit burglary, larceny over $250, and larceny of a firearm based on evidence including hearsay statements made by an accomplice to police while in custody. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that admission of the accomplice's statements violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment confrontation rights under the U.S. Supreme Court's intervening decision in Crawford v. Washington, which requires unavailability of the declarant and a prior opportunity for cross-examination for testimonial hearsay. The court further concluded that the error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the statements provided key evidence of the defendant's role in the crimes. On the double jeopardy issue, the court held that convictions for both larceny counts would not violate the Fifth Amendment if the defendant were retried, as the offenses involved distinct property.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves defendants in pending criminal cases seeking to admit polygraph examination results as evidence of truthfulness under New Mexico Rule of Evidence 11-707. The New Mexico Supreme Court considered whether to repeal Rule 11-707 or require individual hearings under Rule 11-702 to assess scientific reliability. The court decided not to repeal the rule and held that polygraph results are sufficiently reliable for admission under Rule 11-702 when the examiner is qualified and the examination follows Rule 11-707 procedures, without needing separate Daubert hearings. The reasoning centered on the established standards in Rule 11-707 providing adequate safeguards for reliability, while leaving discretion to trial judges under Rule 11-403 to exclude evidence on a case-by-case basis if its probative value is outweighed by risks like confusion or delay.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a prisoner's habeas corpus petition challenging his transfers between facilities, the indefinite suspension of his spousal visitation, and alleged deliberate indifference to his medical needs after contracting hepatitis B. The district court awarded additional good-time credits but denied relief on the remaining claims. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the district court's rulings that the transfers were administrative rather than retaliatory and that prison officials had not been deliberately indifferent to the prisoner's medical care. However, the court held that the indefinite denial of spousal visitation violated due process because it occurred without notice or an opportunity to be heard, and it remanded the case for further proceedings on that issue.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure