Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Elane Photography offers wedding photography to the general public, and posts its photographs on a password protected website for its customers. In this case, Elane refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. The issues on appeal were: (1) whether application of the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA) was violated by Elane when it refused to take the photographs; (2) whether application of the NMHRA violates either the Free Speech or the Free Exercise Clause of the federal constitution; or (3) whether this application violates the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA). Upon careful consideration, the Supreme Court concluded that when Elane refused to photograph the commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the NMHRA does not violate the free speech guarantees because there is no government-mandated message or the publication of the speech of another. Finally, the Court held that the NMRFRA did not apply in this case. View "Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock" on Justia Law

In July 2009, attorney Claude Convisser filed a petition to initiate a Santa Fe County grand jury proceeding. Convisser's petition sought an investigation of a "suspicion of criminal fraud" in connection with the activities of "[Jeffrey] Harbour and his cohorts" in obtaining a will from Frances Harwood shortly before her death in 2003 that gave Harbour control of Harwood's two nonprofit organizations, EcoVersity and Prajna Foundation. Convisser sought to compel a grand jury investigation through a citizens' petition after the New Mexico Attorney General and the Santa Fe District Attorney separately declined his requests to pursue the matter. When Convisser filed his grand jury petition in district court, he included the affidavit of the Santa Fe County Clerk, whom he asked to verify that his petition signatories were Santa Fe County registered voters. In her affidavit, the County Clerk stated (1) that Convisser needed the signatures of 1770 registered voters in order to meet the constitutional requirement; (2) that the names of 68% were the same as names of people who appeared on Santa Fe County's voter registration rolls; (3) the Clerk could not verify that any of the petition's signatories were actually registered voters, because the petition failed to include the signatories' addresses. The district court ultimately rejected the petition, and Convisser appealed. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in this case by rejecting the grand jury petition whose signatories were not confirmed to be registered voters. View "Convisser v. Ecoversity" on Justia Law

Defendant Michael Samora was convicted of first-degree murder and other crimes for the beating death of his girlfriend and a subsequent robbery and stabbing at an Albuquerque convenience store. He argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that his convictions should have been reversed as a result of the district court’s excusal of a Spanish-speaking prospective juror who had difficulty understanding English. While the Court agreed with Defendant’s argument that the juror’s dismissal violated Article VII, Section 3 of the New Mexico Constitution, the Supreme Court held that it was an unpreserved error and not the kind of fundamental error that required reversal of a conviction without first having raised it at trial. View "New Mexico v. Samora" on Justia Law

Defendant Manuel Turrietta argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that his right to a public trial was violated when the district court partially closed the courtroom during the testimony of two confidential informants. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded that the state did not demonstrate an overriding interest for closing the courtroom, and that the district court failed to adequately assess the possible alternatives to closure, or to make adequate findings to support its decision. A "substantial reason" standard does not meet constitutional muster, and the Court held that courts must apply a "Waller" standard prior to closure. As such, Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was violated, and the courtroom closure was unconstitutional. Accordingly, the Court remanded the case for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Turrietta" on Justia Law

Leonard and Kay Nettles purchased property and built a home in a remote subdivision in Rio Arriba County known as Ticonderoga. At the time of the Nettles purchase, the lots in Ticonderoga were subject to various covenants, and the subdivision was governed by a Homeowners’ Association. The Homeowners’ Association amended some of the covenants and its articles of incorporation. One of the amendments changed the definition of “common easements.” The new definition no longer included all roads in Ticonderoga, but specific roads that led to common recreation areas. The new definition now excluded the road that served specifically Nettles’ home as well as some other roads, but still included those roads that led to the majority of homesites in Ticonderoga. As a result of the changed definition, Nettles was still required to pay common assessments to fund the maintenance costs of these other roads, but was now required to maintain the their road privately, along with a few other owners of undeveloped lots on that road, at Nettles’ own expense. A second amendment allegedly diluted Nettles’ voting rights in the Homeowners’ Association. Nettles filed suit against the Homeowners’ Association. The Association filed for summary judgment, claiming that all the actions taken were explicitly authorized by the governing documents of the Association. Nettles countered, claiming that the amendments violated New Mexico law because the amendments were not uniform. The district court granted summary judgment for the Association. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that while Nettles failed to create a triable question on uniformity, the reasonableness of the amendment in this case should have been tried and not disposed of through summary judgment. View "Nettles v. Ticonderoga Owners' Assn., Inc." on Justia Law

James Palenick was hired by the City of Rio Rancho to serve as City Manager. This appeal stemmed from his termination and whether Palenick was estopped from suing the City for breach of contract based on an alleged violation of the Open Meetings Act (OMA). The Supreme Court found that there was substantial evidence to support the district court's finding that Palenick waived his right to sue on the contract claim. View "Palenick v. City of Rio Rancho" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Defendant Aaron Ramos of violating a protection order. He appealed, arguing that he was refused a jury instruction that would have required the jury to find that he had “knowingly” violated the protection order. The Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s decision not to give the “knowingly” instruction. The Supreme Court read the language and structure of the statute at issue and its legislative policy to conclude that it was reversible error to deny Defendant's requested instruction. The case was reversed and remanded for a new trial. View "New Mexico v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for trafficking an imitation controlled substance (here, baking soda packaged to look like cocaine). The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court had to reconcile the application of the state Imitation Controlled Substances Act (which allowed a jury to consider prior convictions related to controlled substances or fraud), and the Rules of Evidence, which restrict the use of prior bad acts (including criminal convictions). To avoid a conflict, the Court held that any evidence of prior convictions referred to by the statute must also be admissible under the rules of evidence. In this case, Defendant's prior convictions did not satisfy Rule 404(B), and therefore their admission into evidence was made in error. The Court found the admission harmless, however, and affirmed Defendant's convictions. The case was remanded to correct a sentencing error. View "New Mexico v. Serna" on Justia Law

Defendant Orlando Torrez was convicted of felony murder after a jury rejected his claim of self-defense. Defendant raised several issues on appeal: (1) whether there were double jeopardy violations; (2) whether the trial court erred in its jury instructions; (3) the alleged denial of process when a witness failed to appear; and (4) the insufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Finding none of Defendant's claims of error persuasive, the Supreme Court affirmed his conviction. View "New Mexico v. Torrez" on Justia Law

In a State Police operation called "Yerba Buena 2006," the state indicted 72-year old Defendant Norman Davis for possessing eight ounces or more of marijuana, and possession of miscellaneous drug paraphernalia. Defendant moved to quash the search warrant and suppress the marijuana and paraphernalia seized. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The issue on appeal to the Supreme Court was whether defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his home. Finding substantial evidence that defendant voluntarily consented to the search, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of defendant's motion to suppress. View "New Mexico v. Davis" on Justia Law