William F. Riordan

Marie Eavenson sued Lewis Means, Inc. for breach of an oral promise of employment, claiming she quit her prior job after accepting a higher-paying offer with health insurance but was then refused the position. The trial court granted summary judgment to Means, but the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed and remanded for trial. The court identified genuine issues of material fact on whether promissory estoppel applied, including reasonable reliance, foreseeable detriment, and economic loss. It further held that promissory estoppel could bar Means from invoking the statute of frauds as a defense if the elements were established at trial.

labor & employmentprocedure

Data General sued Communications Diversified to recover recalculated discounts under a 1978 agreement that provided price discounts on future computer purchases if a minimum quantity was bought within fifteen months. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant, ruling that the agreement was a contract for the sale of goods governed by the UCC's four-year statute of limitations, which had expired. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the agreement was not a contract for the sale of goods because it involved no specific equipment, passed no title for a price, and imposed no obligation to purchase any units. The court determined that the six-year general contract statute of limitations applied instead, the breach occurred the day after the agreement's term ended in June 1979 when the minimum was not met, and the 1983 lawsuit was therefore timely.

business & regulatoryprocedure

In State v. Summerall, the defendant was convicted of residential burglary and conspiracy to commit residential burglary after a co-defendant testified under a grant of immunity that improperly included protection from perjury charges. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, finding plain error in the defective immunity order, but the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated the conviction. The Court held that plain error requires a showing of prejudice to the defendant, which was absent here because the co-defendant's testimony was entirely exculpatory and did not contribute to the conviction. The opinion also clarified that the relevant immunity statute applies only to grand jury proceedings, not trials.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Joel Lee Compton, who was convicted of capital murder for killing a police officer and aggravated assault after an altercation at a motel in Albuquerque. Compton was sentenced to death and appealed on multiple grounds, including the admissibility of his wife's testimony despite a claimed spousal privilege, alleged improper prosecutorial arguments during the penalty phase, various challenges to the constitutionality of New Mexico's death penalty statutes and procedures, and issues related to jury instructions and death qualification of the jury. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, holding that the wife's testimony was properly admitted, any errors in the penalty phase arguments were harmless, the death penalty scheme was constitutional, and the evidence supported the aggravating circumstance of killing a peace officer. The court reasoned that statutory requirements were met, no fundamental error occurred, and proportionality and other reviews did not warrant reversal.

criminal lawprocedure

In Brannock v. Brannock, the petitioner sued her former spouse in district court to collect past-due child support arrearages. The district court found that the parties had entered into an agreement under which the petitioner waived her claim to arrearages in exchange for the respondent's promise to make ongoing monthly payments of $100, dismissed the petition, and reduced the amount of future support; the Court of Appeals affirmed. On certiorari, the New Mexico Supreme Court upheld the judgment, holding that the evidence supported a valid waiver of the reimbursement right because it was supported by consideration and did not impair the children's independent right to support. The Court noted that modification of future support requires a substantial change in circumstances but concluded that the issue had not been preserved on appeal, so the district court's order stood.

family law

In State v. Pothier, two defendants charged with first-degree murder each gave statements to police implicating the other; when called as witnesses in the other's separate trial, they invoked the Fifth Amendment, were granted use immunity, and still refused to testify, leading the trial court to declare mistrials and try them for direct criminal contempt. The district court convicted each of contempt after jury trials and imposed life sentences. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that direct contempt does not require a preliminary hearing, that the evidence was sufficient, that defenses and jury instructions were properly handled, and that other procedural claims lacked merit; it reversed only the sentences, finding life imprisonment an abuse of discretion because contempt is sui generis, comparable New Mexico cases imposed far shorter terms, and no other state allows imprisonment longer than one year for the offense. The case was remanded for resentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Chapman, defendant Kirk Chapman was convicted of murdering his parents and appealed, raising issues about improper expert testimony, the trial court's handling of his request to proceed pro se, and due process concerns over jury instructions and competency determinations. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that the trial court erred by refusing to give a limiting instruction directing the jury to disregard the state's psychiatric expert's prejudicial references to other murder cases involving paranoid schizophrenics, such as the Son of Sam case. The court reasoned that these comments created a strong implication that Chapman should also be found guilty, that the objection was timely and well-taken, and that both parties had agreed a limiting instruction would cure any error, making the failure to admonish the jury a denial of a fair trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Dickens v. Hall, landlord George Dickens sued to eject month-to-month tenant Harry Hall from commercial property after providing notice to vacate; Hall had entered a sublease with American R.V. Mart, which intervened claiming the underlying property sale violated New Mexico antitrust laws. The district court granted Dickens possession but reserved jurisdiction over the intervention claims and damages. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the ejectment action was premature because the complaint was filed before the required thirty-day notice period had run, meaning Dickens lacked the statutory right to possession at the time of filing under NMSA 1978 Sections 42-4-1 and 42-4-7. The court further held that the trial court properly exercised discretion under civil procedure rules to separate the ejectment from the intervention claims, so American was not denied due process. The case was remanded for determination of any damages to Hall and American from the premature ejectment action.

propertyprocedure

This case involves disciplinary proceedings against attorney Esteban A. Martinez for neglecting client matters. The court found violations including failing to pursue a visitation rights case and allowing a personal injury claim's statute of limitations to expire, plus not cooperating with disciplinary inquiries. The court decided to suspend Martinez from practice for one year but deferred the suspension in favor of one year of probation with conditions such as supervision, caseload reduction, and restitution to clients. The reasoning emphasizes the need to protect the public by ensuring attorneys manage their cases competently and maintain procedures to handle their workload effectively, even without malicious intent.

procedure

The case involved holders of New Mexico liquor licenses who challenged a statute restricting alcohol sales on Sundays and other days, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate local option elections and allow Sunday sales. The trial court denied relief and dismissed the suit, which the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed on appeal. The court ruled that the statute's classifications among licensees did not violate equal protection under the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions because they rested on a rational basis tied to the state's interest in regulating alcohol for public health, safety, and morals. It further held that the law did not violate the establishment clause, as it had a secular purpose of providing rest and recreation, did not advance or inhibit religion, and avoided government entanglement with religious matters.

business & regulatoryreligious libertyelections

The case concerned whether compensation paid to Allen Kennish for selling solar collectors on behalf of Solar Age Manufacturing qualified as wages from employment under New Mexico's unemployment compensation statute, thereby making him eligible for benefits. The Employment Security Department and lower courts had ruled that Kennish was an employee, but the New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that he was an independent contractor. The court applied the three-part test in NMSA 1978, Section 51-1-42(F)(5), finding by a preponderance of the evidence that Solar Age exercised no meaningful control over Kennish's sales activities, that the sales occurred primarily outside Solar Age's places of business, and that Kennish's work had the attributes of an independently established occupation. The decision turned on specific facts such as Kennish's freedom to set prices and hours, sell competitors' products, and use his own transportation and materials.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatory

In Foster v. Board of Dentistry, a dentist appealed the 14-day suspension of his license by the New Mexico Board of Dentistry, which had been upheld by the district court. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the suspension, ruling that the Board lacked jurisdiction because it failed to render and sign its decision within the 90-day statutory deadline under the Uniform Licensing Act after the hearing concluded. The court reasoned that the language of the statute is mandatory and unambiguous, so any decision issued outside the timeframe is void, and it rejected arguments that the deadline was merely procedural or could be extended by combining it with the service requirement.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved Jorge Garcia, convicted of receiving stolen property based on cash found in his car during a warrantless search after he twice refused consent. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed the conviction and ordered Garcia discharged, holding that evidence of his refusal to consent could not be introduced or argued at trial because it improperly burdens the exercise of Fourth Amendment rights, akin to the privilege against self-incrimination. The court further reasoned that the search was invalid absent exigent circumstances or a warrant, and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the conviction.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

Superior Construction sued the Linnerooths for breach of contract and debt, and also sued American Service Corporation to void a deed and obtain specific performance of a real estate purchase agreement, claiming a one-third interest in the property; Superior filed a lis pendens notice on the land. The Linnerooths counterclaimed for slander of title (among other claims) based on the lis pendens filing, and after trial the district court quieted title in the Linnerooths and awarded them damages for slander of title. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that the filing of the lis pendens was protected by the absolute privilege for statements in judicial proceedings under NMSA 1978, Section 38-1-14, and thus could not support the slander of title claim. The court found it unnecessary to reach alternative issues such as conditional privilege or the sufficiency of evidence on malice and damages.

propertyproceduretorts & liability

The case involved a dispute over whether a former wife's community property interest in her ex-husband's retirement benefits, awarded upon divorce as a share of monthly payments, could pass to her estate after her death, entitling her sister to continue receiving a portion of those benefits. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's summary judgment, modifying prior precedent to require that community retirement benefits be divided on a pay-as-it-comes-in basis unless the parties agree otherwise. The court held that such an award terminates upon the death of either spouse, except that the non-employee spouse's estate may continue receiving payments until it recovers the proportionate share of community contributions made to the plan. The core reasoning was that while retirement benefits serve a sustenance purpose, the non-employee spouse contributed half of the community funds and thus holds a devisable interest limited to recovering those contributions for fairness and equity.

family lawproperty

The case involved two defendants charged with cocaine possession and trafficking after police found drugs in a tire during a vehicle search. Officers stopped the car for speeding, observed factors matching a drug-trafficking profile, conducted an NCIC check that returned negative, and briefly detained the defendants before obtaining a signed consent to search. The trial court and Court of Appeals suppressed the evidence, ruling the post-NCIC detention an illegal seizure that invalidated the consent as a matter of law. The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding the short detention reasonable under the totality of circumstances and that the voluntary consent was not tainted by any illegality, thereby reinstating the case for trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Case v. State, defendant Carl Case was convicted of criminal contempt after refusing to testify in a homicide trial despite being granted use immunity, leading to a sentence of ten years imprisonment for a single count following a retrial. The New Mexico Supreme Court vacated the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing, while affirming the conviction itself. The court reasoned that the ten-year term was excessive and an abuse of discretion because contempt punishments must be reasonably related to the nature and gravity of the conduct, considering factors like the seriousness of the defiance, the public interest in deterrence, and precedents showing far shorter sentences for similar violations; it also noted that the contempt was punitive rather than coercive since the underlying trial had concluded and the defendant was already serving a life sentence plus eighteen years.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a worker's compensation award to Chris Felix after he was injured on the job at Eberline Instrument Corporation. Felix had accepted a demotion to a lower-paying machine operator role at $6.35 per hour shortly before his accident, but the trial court and Court of Appeals calculated his benefits using his prior higher welder wage of $9.72 per hour as his "primary employment." The New Mexico Supreme Court reversed, holding that NMSA 1978 Section 52-1-20 requires benefits to be based on the wage rate under the contract of hire in force at the time of the accident, and that the statutory exception for unfair computations did not apply here because the hourly rate at injury accurately reflected Felix's earnings. The Court rejected reliance on precedent involving erratic employment histories, emphasizing the plain statutory language that ties wages to the accident-time contract.

labor & employment

United Nuclear Corporation sued Allendale Mutual Insurance Company seeking coverage for business interruption and property damage losses from the failure of a tailings dam at its Churchrock uranium mill site. The trial court ruled that the policy covered the losses from differential settlement, awarded compensatory and punitive damages plus attorney's fees, and found in favor of the other insurer. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the coverage determination, holding that the policy's exclusion for subsidence or other earth movement did not apply because the terms distinguished settlement impairing structural integrity from excluded events, and it upheld the attorney's fees award after reviewing the calculation and multiplier. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part on the remaining issues of damages and interest.

business & regulatoryproperty

In State v. Chacon, the defendant was convicted of two felonies in 1983 and later charged as a habitual offender under NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-17, with the state filing an original supplemental criminal information and then a First Amended Supplemental Criminal Information that added a prior conviction and shifted the enhancement from subsection (C) to (D). The trial court found the defendant to be a habitual offender and enhanced his sentences by four years; the Court of Appeals reversed on speedy-trial grounds under Crim.P.Rule 37, but the New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari. The Supreme Court held that the amended information was sufficiently distinct—changing the applicable subsection, adding a conviction that doubled the potential enhancement, and requiring a new arraignment—to constitute a new filing that restarted the six-month period under Rule 37, so the May 1984 trial fell within the time limit from the February 1984 arraignment. The court relied on State v. Benally to distinguish an “amended information” from a mere “amendment to information” and remanded the remaining issues to the Court of Appeals.

criminal lawprocedure