New Mexico Case Laws
Click on the below to read New Mexico Case Laws for the following years:
2008
2007
2006
2004
New Mexico Case Law 2008
In State v. Pacheco, 182 P.3d 834 (N.M.App. 2008) the defendant’s relatives secured his bail with a surety that was not authorized to write bonds in the county where he was detained. That surety arranged for another surety to post the bond. The defendant failed to appear for trial, and the court issued a bench warrant. Two days later, on Thursday, December 8, the court filed a notice of forfeiture and scheduled a show cause hearing for December 13. The clerk, however, did not mail the notice to the surety until December 13, and the surety received it on the 14th. The first surety, however, appeared at the hearing and was granted more time to try to locate the defendant. The court granted a series of additional extensions, but neither surety recovered the defendant, and the court entered a final judgment forfeiting the bond a year after the initial failure to appear. The surety appealed arguing that the clerk did not provide statutory notice of the failure to appear, the court abused its discretion in forfeiting the bond, and the court entered inconsistent findings as to the two sureties.
The Court noted the distinction between notice of forfeiture and notice of the show cause hearing. New Mexico Statutes §31-3-2(B) required notice of forfeiture within four working days of the declaration of forfeiture. Here, the forfeiture was declared on Thursday, the notice mailed to the surety the following Tuesday, and the surety received it on Wednesday. The four allowed days were Friday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and so the notice of forfeiture was timely received by the surety and the clerk complied with §31-3-2(B). Section 31-3-2(E) requires that notice of the show cause hearing be mailed to the surety. The surety did not receive notice of the initial show cause hearing until the day after it took place, but the court did not enter judgment at that hearing. It granted a series of extensions and held more hearings, at which the surety appeared and participated, before entering the final judgment a year later. The Court held that notice of these later hearings satisfied §31-3-2(E). The Court also held that under the circumstances the trial court acted reasonably and within its discretion and that the relationship between the two sureties, and the first surety’s agreement to hold the second surety harmless, was irrelevant to the forfeiture action.
New Mexico Case Law 2007
In State v. Romero, 160 P.3d 914 (N.M. 2007) the defendant appeared when required, but the court forfeited his bond for breach of other conditions on his release as permitted by the bond form mandated by New Mexico Court Rules but not authorized by statute. The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals reported at 143 P.3d 763 (N.M.App. 2006) and held that the statute controlled and the bond should not have been forfeited. The decision recognized that bonds would not be available if the surety was exposed to forfeiture for conditions other than appearance. The Court stated, “If the statute were interpreted otherwise, a surety would be required to insure against a wide range of behaviors, including a defendant’s consumption of alcohol, possession of weapons, contact with victims, and disobedience of the law in general. This is clearly an unacceptable risk that no surety would be expected to take.” The Court also urged the Rules Committee to modify the bond forms.
New Mexico Case Law 2006
State v. Gutierrez, 140 P.3d 1106 (N.M.App. 2006) (Cert. Den. August 10, 2006) held that cash only bail does not violate the sufficient sureties clause of the New Mexico Constitution. New Mexico Rule 5-401(B) lists a series of release alternatives in ascending order of onerousness. The final alternative is execution of an appearance bond secured by 100% cash deposited with the clerk. The Constitution provides that all persons shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. The Court stated, “Therefore, we conclude that Rule 5-401 expressly provides for cash-only bail, that this does not violate the New Mexico Constitution, and that a cash-only bond is permissible in appropriate circumstances.” The Court emphasized, however, that the cash-only alternative is the last choice and should be used only after careful consideration.
State v. Romero, 143 P.3d 763 (N.M.App. 2006) Cert. Granted, Supreme Court No. 30,000 (October 3, 2006) held that a bail bond can be forfeited only for nonappearance of the defendant not for breach of any other conditions of release. The applicable statute, NMSA §31-3-2 (1993), states that whenever a person fails to appear the court may declare a forfeiture. The State argued that the bond form mandated by the Supreme Court, and used in the consolidated cases before the Court of Appeals, permitted forfeiture for breach of other obligations in addition to appearance. The Court of Appeals held that the statute controlled and while the defendant’s release could be revoked and a warrant for his arrest issued because of breach of other conditions, the surety bond could be forfeited only for nonappearance. On October 3 the New Mexico Supreme Court granted Certiorari to consider this case.
New Mexico Case Law 2004
In State v. Valles, 99 P.3d 679, opinion reinstated, 143 P.3d 496 (N.M. App. 2004) the bond, on a form mandated by court rules, provided that it remained in force until discharged by the court. The applicable statute, however, stated that the bond was null and void upon a finding that the accused person was guilty. The defendant pled guilty but did not appear for sentencing. The issue was whether the statute or the bond itself controlled. The court held that the statute controlled and reversed a judgment forfeiting the bond.