The cases addressed here will deal with the criminal defense process. To that end, the cases largely deal with criminal law and procedure and the constitutional rights of the accused as they related to New Mexico law and procedure. The cases will be drawn from the New Mexico Court of Appeals, the New Mexico Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
The origin of the case will be noted in the title of case along with a brief summary of the issues addressed. Rather than use the proper legal citation for the court of origin, we will use the following abbreviations: New Mexico Court of Appeals (NMCA), New Mexico Supreme Court (NMSC), and United States Supreme Court (USSC).
It should be noted that the constitutional protections in criminal proceedings under New Mexico‘s constitution are often broader than the protections of federal law. As such, there are often instances where the New Mexico courts will expand the rights of the accused beyond the rights afforded under the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court.
It should also be noted that the process, rights and procedure are largely the same for DWI defense and criminal defense more broadly. Despite the overlap, we have created separate sections for both areas for organizational purposes and ease of use. Moreover, there are many issues that are unique to DWI defense that are deserving of separate attention.
Again, as noted on the Case Summaries entry page, these case summaries are meant only to educate you on the process, procedure and rights involved in your criminal case. They are not meant as legal advice. More to the point, they are not meant to serve as a substitute for the counsel of an experienced criminal defense attorney.
State v. Gonzales (NMSC 2013)
The New Mexico Supreme Court addresses here the issue of double jeopardy following an Appellate Court reversal for lack of evidence.
State v. Collier (NMSC 2013)
This case addresses the issue of double jeopardy in light of a mistrial on uncharged lesser included offenses.
Florida v. Jardines (USSC 2013)
The United States Supreme Court addresses here whether the use of a drug-sniffing dog on the porch of a homeowner constituted an illegal search under the Fourth Amendment.
State v. Mario Moncayo (NMCA 2012)
The New Mexico Court of Appeals, consistent with Bullcoming, found that it was impermissible under the confrontation clause to allow testimony on chemical testing by a substitute analyst unless the analyst who actually tested the drugs was both unavailable and the defendant had an opportunity to question the analyst in advance of trial.
Smith v. United States (USSC 2012)
In Smith v. U.S., the Supreme Court addresses the intersection of the statute of limitations and the affirmative defense of “withdrawal” from the conspiracy. More specifically, the Court addressed the burden of proof of affirmative defenses such as “withdrawal”.
Bailey v. United States (USSC 2012)
The U.S. Supreme Court found that it violated the 4th Amendment to detain a suspect at a location remote from a premises being searched under a warrant for purposes of facilitating the search.
Marshall v. Rodgers (USSC 2013)
This case involved a defendant who waived and reasserted his right to counsel three times ultimately proceeding to and losing at trial pro se. The question presented was whether the defendant then had the right to reassert his right to counsel once again post-trial for purposes of filing a motion for a new trial.