Irwin S. Moise

The case involved a mayor suing members of a village council for malfeasance in office under state statute, seeking their removal along with invalidation of one member's appointment. The disputes centered on the council's refusal to confirm the mayor's nominees for vacancies and its appointment of another individual over the mayor's objections, as well as related conflicts over police and water superintendent positions. The trial court found the defendants had engaged in a willful scheme to harass the mayor and usurp his powers, ordering their removal. On appeal, the supreme court reversed, holding there was no substantial evidence of malice or conspiracy to support a finding of malfeasance and that removal of elected officials requires strong proof of willful wrongdoing. It also deemed the appointment challenge moot due to expiration of the term and subsequent election of the appointee.

criminal lawprocedureelections

The case involved a default judgment entered against Jerry Dean Brewster and his mother on a promissory note for unpaid attorney fees. Brewster moved to vacate the judgment under Rule 60(b), arguing improper substituted service (only one copy of the summons and complaint left for both defendants) and lack of consideration for the note because the attorney had been court-appointed and paid by the state for representing him in a criminal matter. The trial court denied the motion to vacate but credited the state fee amount against the judgment. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the service was invalid under Rule 4(e) since a separate copy must be delivered for each defendant when multiple defendants reside at the same abode, as supported by precedent like Chaney v. Reddin, and that the note lacked consideration because the attorney was already obligated to provide the services.

procedurecriminal law

This case concerns a dispute over modification of child custody and visitation orders following a 1967 divorce in which the mother initially received primary custody of the two young children and the father had visitation rights plus support obligations. After the mother planned to remarry and move to California, the father petitioned for full custody or expanded visitation; the trial court instead kept principal custody with the mother, permitted the move, and adjusted visitation to include six-week summer periods plus alternate holidays while requiring the father to pay transportation costs. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that the best interests of the children remained the paramount consideration and that the trial court's findings adequately supported continued maternal custody even with the relocation. The court further held that the absence of a bill of exceptions confined review to legal issues arising from the findings and that no reversible error had been shown regarding the modification process or financial allocation.

family law

This case concerned whether Kaiser Steel Corporation could exercise eminent domain under New Mexico statute § 75-1-3 to construct a pipeline across WS Ranch Company's land to convey water for use in Kaiser's coal mine, after Kaiser entered the property without permission or prior condemnation proceedings. The trial court granted summary judgment declaring the statute constitutional and holding that inverse condemnation under § 22-9-22 was the landowner's exclusive remedy. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the statute permits any corporation to condemn rights-of-way for conveying water for beneficial uses, that the public-use requirement is satisfied by the nature of the water conveyance rather than the end industrial purpose, and that the inverse condemnation statute provides a complete mechanism for compensation applicable to private condemners. The court noted that Kaiser had the statutory right to condemn and that trespass damages were unavailable once that right was established.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case concerned a lawsuit to collect on a promissory note executed for the first year's premium on two life insurance policies, where the defendant claimed the note was void because it was given in exchange for an illegal rebate on the premium in violation of a New Mexico statute making receipt of such rebates a misdemeanor. The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiff, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the statute's prohibition on rebates did not render the note unenforceable, as excusing payment would permit the defendant to profit from his own criminal act, the statute's penalties are exclusive, and the parties were not in pari delicto so as to leave them where found. The court also noted that the insurance company could not have avoided its own policy obligations based on the same illegality.

business & regulatorycriminal law

In State v. Tapia, the defendant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, raising two claims of trial court error. He first contended that voluntary intoxication severe enough to prevent formation of a specific intent to kill should reduce the crime to voluntary manslaughter, but the court rejected this because New Mexico law does not require a specific intent to kill for second-degree murder and thus intoxication provides no defense to that charge. On the second claim, the defendant argued it was improper to try him in the same court term in which the charges arose under certain statutes governing bonds, recognizances, and filings, but the court held those provisions did not limit when trial could occur and noted the defendant showed no prejudice from the timing. The court affirmed the conviction.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a New Mexico pharmacist whose license was revoked by the state Board of Pharmacy after findings that he willfully sold dangerous drugs like penicillin without prescriptions on two occasions and failed to keep accurate records of depressant and stimulant drugs. The pharmacist appealed to district court, which set aside the revocation on grounds that the board's findings lacked substantial evidence and its conclusions were arbitrary. On further appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the evidence of sales was insufficiently reliable and that inadequate record-keeping did not constitute 'unprofessional conduct' under the applicable statutory standards, as it did not involve grossly immoral or dishonorable behavior.

business & regulatoryhealthcareprocedure

The case involved the discharge of a tenure teacher with twenty years of service in the Santa Fe school system, who had been tendered and accepted a contract for the 1960-1961 school year before being terminated on May 26, 1960. After multiple prior appeals, the district court reversed the decisions of the local and State Boards of Education, concluding that the discharge lacked substantial evidentiary support and was arbitrary. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, determining that evidence of the teacher's prior conduct could not be used to cancel the new contract and that post-tender misconduct was insufficient to justify termination under the applicable statute.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involves a quo warranto proceeding challenging the validity of the incorporation of the Village of Questa based on whether the required petition signatures from property owners were obtained. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the trial court erred by placing the burden of proof on the plaintiffs and by treating the county commissioners' findings as conclusive and immune from attack. The court reasoned that precedent places the burden on defendants in quo warranto actions to justify the incorporation, and material differences between the statute's requirements for valid petition signatures and the limited facts the board was directed to verify meant the findings did not preclude judicial review. The judgment dismissing the case was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings allowing the plaintiffs to introduce evidence.

procedure

In this case, a juvenile court judge ordered preliminary hearings for four juveniles charged with unlawful sale of marijuana (an act that would be a felony for adults) before jury trials to determine delinquency under New Mexico's juvenile code. The district attorney petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition, asserting no statutory or constitutional basis for such hearings. The court granted the writ and held that preliminary hearings are not required, reasoning that juvenile proceedings are not criminal in nature, the state constitution's preliminary hearing guarantee applies only to persons charged with capital, felonious, or infamous crimes via information, and the mandated jury trial plus other code safeguards adequately protect due process. The court distinguished these cases from adult criminal prosecutions and limited its ruling to the specific issue presented.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the validity of a financing plan under New Mexico's School Leasing Law in which the Alamogordo Municipal School District sold a small parcel of land to a nonprofit authority (whose members were identical to the school board) for $200, the authority issued revenue bonds to construct a school building on the land, and the district then leased the building back with annual payments of $75,000 drawn from state appropriations and federal funds, secured by a mortgage on the property and lease. The trial court permanently enjoined the plan, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the authority and district were effectively the same entity, so the arrangement created an unconstitutional debt without voter approval and in excess of constitutional limits; the lease payments were not from a true special fund but from general taxation sources, bringing the scheme within prior precedents barring such circumvention of debt restrictions.

taxesbusiness & regulatory

In State v. Pace, the defendant appealed his first-degree murder conviction and death sentence, raising multiple claims of trial error, including that the jury selection process systematically excluded prospective jurors with religious or conscientious objections to capital punishment in violation of Witherspoon v. Illinois. The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the voir dire record and concluded that nearly all excused jurors had clearly stated they could not vote to convict if it would result in the death penalty, with no reversible error in the two instances where questioning was less definitive because defense counsel declined the opportunity to probe further. The court initially affirmed the conviction and sentence. In a supplemental opinion, however, the court addressed a new statute effective during the appeal that abolished the death penalty except in limited circumstances; it held that the defendant was entitled to resentencing under the new law because the judgment was not yet final and the legislature intended retroactive application. The conviction was upheld but the case was remanded for imposition of a life sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over ownership of a 4.6-acre tract of land in the Town of Atrisco grant, where the plaintiff sought to quiet title based on a 1967 deed from the town corporation. The defendants claimed ownership through a 1956 deed from a third party and argued adverse possession by grazing livestock, but provided no evidence of title transfer from the original owner and insufficient proof of dominion over the land. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding her to be the rightful owner and the defendants without rights, distinguishing the facts from a prior case on adverse possession and noting the lack of clear and convincing evidence for the defendants' claims. The judgment was affirmed because the defendants failed to meet their burden on adverse possession and chain of title.

property

In State v. Clark, the New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed a conviction for kidnapping under § 40A-4-1, where the defendant was accused of using force to restrain and move a victim with intent to confine her against her will. The defendant challenged the statute as unconstitutionally vague and overlapping with the lesser offense of false imprisonment under § 40A-4-3, arguing it violated equal protection by giving prosecutors unchecked discretion, and also contested the victim's in-court identification as potentially tainted. The court interpreted the kidnapping statute using rules of grammar and statutory construction to require that the victim be held for ransom, as a hostage, or to service against the victim's will, distinguishing it from false imprisonment which lacks the force or deception element. Based on this reading and the facts presented, the majority concluded the conduct did not constitute kidnapping. A dissent argued the facts satisfied the elements and would have affirmed the conviction.

criminal law

The case involved Lester Allen Garlick's appeal from the district court's denial of his motion to vacate his criminal sentence under Rule 93. The New Mexico Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the notice of appeal was not filed within the required 30 days after the final order denying relief on January 5, 1968. The court reasoned that timely filing of an appeal is jurisdictional under state rules, and neither the supplemental proceedings nor the constitutional right to one appeal altered the 30-day deadline. The rehearing motion was also denied, confirming that the time limit is a procedural requirement that does not infringe on the right to appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Shumate v. Hillis, plaintiffs sought to enforce a California judgment in New Mexico court, attaching a properly exemplified copy that recited due service of process on the defendant. The defendant answered by denying service and asserting the judgment was void for lack of jurisdiction, and both parties moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding the judgment void and not entitled to full faith and credit. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether the defendant had been personally served, which could not be resolved on summary judgment where the California judgment recited proper service but the defendant denied it.

procedure

This case involved property owners in Cloudcroft, New Mexico, acting through the Cloudcroft Directory, who sued to enjoin a lot purchaser from operating a store, alleging violation of 1900-era restrictive covenants that barred trade or commerce on the lots except for hotels and boarding houses. The trial court refused the injunction and dismissed the complaint, and the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed. The court applied the changed-conditions doctrine, holding that enforcement was no longer equitable because substantial alterations—including loss of the original fence separating the subdivision, a new highway, year-round residency, and other developments—had frustrated the covenants' original purpose of preserving an exclusive summer resort. The decision rested on the principle that covenants will not be enforced when conditions have changed so radically that the intended benefits can no longer be substantially realized.

property

The case concerned the validity of a consolidation between Belen Municipal School District No. 2 and La Joya Rural Independent School District No. 5, which are located in different counties. Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to dissolve the consolidation ordered by the State Board of Education, raising challenges that inter-county consolidations were not permitted by statute, procedural requirements were unmet, and the arrangement unconstitutionally impaired voting rights for State Board of Education members under Article XII, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the consolidation was unauthorized and invalid. Its core reasoning was that the governing statute, § 73-20-3 NMSA 1953, expressly limited consolidations to districts "within the county," and the 1955 amendment adding other classes of districts did not eliminate or override that geographic restriction.

electionsprocedure

The case Deats v. State arose from a criminal prosecution in which the defendant sought a change of venue due to extensive pretrial media coverage in Bernalillo County, claiming it prevented a fair trial under the state constitution. The New Mexico Supreme Court reviewed the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the trial court's denial of the motion and affirmed that decision. The court reasoned that the evidence of newspaper and broadcast stories did not establish pervasive prejudice or public excitement sufficient to require a venue change as a matter of right, and that the trial court properly exercised its discretion under the applicable statutes after hearing evidence and making findings. It further declined to address claims regarding the prosecutor's closing arguments, finding they did not raise an issue of substantial public interest warranting review.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a widow who sought to reform a deed she executed conveying part of her "home place" property to her son, arguing that the conveyance was made by mistake and that she had intended to transfer that property to her daughter instead. The trial court denied reformation, finding that the deed accurately reflected her intention at the time of execution to equalize gifts between her two children. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed, holding that reformation requires either mutual mistake or unilateral mistake accompanied by fraud or inequitable conduct, and that the plaintiff failed to meet her burden of proving mistake by clear and satisfactory evidence, as the evidence supported the conclusion that she later changed her mind.

propertyfamily law