Patricio M. Serna

The case involved property owners in Angel Fire, New Mexico, who filed suit more than a year after a 2008 election approving formation of a public improvement district (PID), seeking to declare the election void due to procedural defects, the PID nonexistent, and a special levy on their properties invalid. The district court dismissed the complaint as untimely under the Election Code's thirty-day statute of limitations for election contests. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, adopting the Court of Appeals' reasoning that the election challenge was time-barred while noting that challenges to post-formation acts like the special levy were not election contests; it further held that the PID Act expressly authorized the board to assess the levy by resolution rather than election, and that the complaint lacked factual support for other claims regarding the levy's apportionment or related contracts.

electionspropertytaxes

The case involved Steve Tollardo, convicted by a jury as an accessory to first-degree murder and kidnapping, as well as conspiracy to commit murder and kidnapping, in connection with the 2003 killing of Juan Alcantar in Taos. On direct appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court considered whether the district court erred by informing the jury that two co-conspirators had been convicted of conspiracy to commit second-degree murder for the same homicide. The court held that the disclosure was erroneous and not harmless, reversing all of Tollardo's convictions and remanding for a new trial; it clarified that harmless-error analysis requires case-specific review of the circumstances rather than mechanical application of a multi-factor test.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defamation lawsuit brought by Walter F. Smith, III, a former priest, against church vestry members and parishioners who distributed a packet containing allegations of sexual misconduct with minors. The New Mexico Supreme Court held that a plaintiff must show actual injury to reputation to establish a defamation claim, and evidence of humiliation or mental anguish alone is insufficient. The court reasoned that injury to reputation is the core element of defamation, reversing the Court of Appeals' decision that mental distress could suffice. It affirmed summary judgment for the defendants but remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint for other claims.

torts & liabilityfree speechprocedure

In State v. Lopez, the defendant was convicted of first-degree felony murder with criminal sexual penetration as the underlying felony after a jury trial in New Mexico district court. On appeal, the New Mexico Supreme Court addressed whether the admission of an unavailable witness's preliminary hearing testimony violated the defendant's confrontation rights and whether the state properly impeached that testimony with another witness's hearsay statements about prior inconsistent remarks. The court held that the state introduced the preliminary hearing testimony primarily to circumvent hearsay rules by impeaching it with otherwise inadmissible evidence, rather than for its substantive value, which constituted an abuse of discretion. As a result, the convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved consolidated appeals by the New Mexico Attorney General and New Mexico Industrial Energy Consumers challenging a Final Order from the Public Regulation Commission (PRC) that amended its Energy Efficiency Rules. The PRC order implemented the Efficient Use of Energy Act by allowing utilities temporary and ongoing financial incentives, known as adders, for energy efficiency programs without requiring cost-based justifications. The New Mexico Supreme Court annulled and vacated the PRC's Final Order. The court held that the PRC failed to base the adder rates on evidence from utilities' revenue requirements or traditional ratemaking factors, rendering the rates neither just nor reasonable under applicable law. The matter was remanded to the PRC for further proceedings.

business & regulatoryenvironment

The case involved oilfield workers employed by Permian Drilling Corporation who were injured or killed in a car accident while traveling to a mobile drilling rig site. The workers sought compensation under the New Mexico Workers’ Compensation Act, claiming their injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the lower courts' decisions denying compensation, holding that the workers qualified as traveling employees because their travel was mutually beneficial to both the employees and employer and involved special hazards unique to the employment, such as long distances to remote rural sites. The court reasoned that these factors distinguished the travel from a typical commute, making the injuries compensable.

labor & employment