Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

Travel restrictions are a standard condition of release in criminal cases. Travel restrictions are often imposed on defendants even in minor misdemeanor cases. These restrictions are often routinely set as a condition of release even when there is no need for them. In some cases, restrictions on travel can have very harmful and unnecessary consequences for the defendant and his or her family.

It is very important to address travel restrictions at the earliest opportunity which may be at the first appearance or arraignment depending upon the circumstances. It is also very important to inform your attorney if travel restrictions will pose problems. These problems can arise in a variety of ways.

Job duties and family duties are the most common basis for modifying the conditions of release to lessen travel restrictions. Many New Mexicans must travel outside the restricted areas for a variety of job and family related reasons.

The travel restrictions often limit travel to the county of the defendant's residence. Sometimes, the travel restrictions will be less strict allowing travel to adjacent counties or even the State of New Mexico as a whole. Travel limitations which restrict travel to the county of residence or adjacent counties can cause enormous work and family related problems.

Because New Mexico is fairly spread out, people often work in counties other than where they reside. In addition, kids often go to school, have doctor's appointments, daycare, family support structures and so on outside the county of residence or even beyond adjacent counties. In addition, there are many defendants that must travel outside New Mexico for work.

Other issues can arise as well such as the need to care for sick parents or other family members that are outside the county or even the state. There may also be training and education requirements that require travel. In short, there are countless reasons a defendant might be required to travel outside his or her county or New Mexico.

Travel restrictions can cause severe burdens on the defendant and the family. At worst, the defendant could lose his or her job or the kids cannot get to school on time or perhaps at all due to the inability to travel. At best, unnecessary travel restrictions are a burden that serve neither the alleged victim or the public.

Depending upon the circumstances, the nature of the charges, the defendants criminal history, the defendant's record of attending all required hearings and so on, many judges will entertain modifications to the travel restrictions to minimize harmful and unnecessary burdens on the defendant and his or her family.

Work and family duties will be considered carefully by most judges as it is clearly to the benefit of none for the defendant to lose his job, the family to lose financial resources, or the family to suffer unnecessary burdens and losses. On the other hand, judges are less likely to entertain vacation and recreational travel though in some cases even these may be accommodated so long as the prosecutor does not oppose.

The most important thing to take from this is that the court needs to know the burdens that travel restrictions will cause the defendant. This means informing your attorney if you have one, or telling the court directly if you do not. Otherwise, the conditions are imposed as a matter of course. Once in place, it is much harder to get them modified and will require a motion and likely a hearing with the defendant present in court.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The recent New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Trevizo addressed the statute of limitations on first time DWI and reckless driving in New Mexico. The court concluded both first time DWI and reckless driving are petty misdemeanors under New Mexico law and therefore subject to a one year statute of limitations.

The facts are pretty straightforward. The defendant was arrested on October 13, 2005. The criminal complaint for DWI and reckless driving was not filed until April 12, 2007, one day short of 18 months from the date of arrest.

The defendant filed a motion to dismiss in Albuquerque Metropolitan Court for violation for one year statute of limitations on petty misdemeanors. The motion was denied and the defendant was convicted on both counts. The defendant appealed to District Court which reversed the Metro Court decision. The State then appealed the District Court ruling.

The relevant statutes as set forth by the Court of Appeals provide the following statute of limitations:

C. for a misdemeanor, within two years from the time the crime was committed; D. for a petty misdemeanor, within one year from the time the crime was committed; G. for any crime not contained in the Criminal Code or where a limitation is not otherwise provided for, within three years from the time the crime was committed.

The State argued under paragraph C, D and G of NMSA §30-1-8 (now paragraphs C, D & H under 2009 Amendments) resulted in either a 2 or 3 year statute of limitations. The State argued that because the offenses were in the MVD code and not the criminal code, they should be covered by the catchall 3 year provision in paragraph G. In the alternative, the State argued that because the MVD code stated that all MVD code violations were classified as misdemeanors in the absence of contrary language in the code.

The Court of Appeals disagreed pointing out a number of problems with the State's position. The Court noted the absurdity of placing all MVD violations under the 3 year statute of limitations by virtue of the fact that they fall outside the criminal code. The result would be that not only would first time DWI and reckless driving be covered by the 3 year statute, so too would "speeding violations, parking violations, failure to signal, following too closely, and other traffic violations." The result would be that these petty traffic offenses would carry limitations period equal to that to serious felonies.

After a thorough analysis of the case-law and statutes, the Court concluded that the classification of a crime should be determined by the possible penalties. In doing so, the Court also addressed the State's position regarding the classification of all MVD violations not specifically delineated in the code.

Granted the MVD code does have some contradictory language. Section 66-8-7(B) of the Motor Vehicle Code provides "Unless another penalty is specified in the Motor Vehicle Code, every person convicted of a misdemeanor for violation of any provision of the Motor Vehicle Code shall be punished by a fine of not more than three hundred dollars ($300) or by imprisonment for not more than ninety days or both." Thus the MVD sentencing guidelines are consistent with sentencing for a petty misdemeanor despite the language suggesting that the offenses should be classified as misdemeanors.

Consistent with the possible sentencing of only 90 days, the Court concluded that both DWI first offense and reckless driving must be classified as a petty misdemeanor and therefore subject to the one year statute of limitation. For those facing dated DWI charges, keep in mind that the ruling is limited to first time DWI and reckless driving. Repeat DWI offenders face much longer sentences which would bring them under the 2 year misdemeanor statute of limitation or in 4th or subsequent DWI offenses, the felony limitations period.

Due to the inconsistency in the MVD code language, and the seriousness with which DWI is treated in New Mexico, it is likely that this case will be appealed to the New Mexico Supreme Court. In addition or in the alternative, the legislature may address the issue in the next session to lengthen the statute of limitations. As such, if you are faced with a situation like this, be sure to consult with a DWI attorney to identify the limitations period on your case.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Because computers store such a large volume and variety of documents, a police search and seizure of your computer during is often a far greater intrusion on your privacy than a normal search would be. Computers can hold anything from banking records to e-mails to text documents to photos. Technology is advancing at an astounding rate, and hard drives can now store enough data to fill a warehouse.

A warrant to search your house for specific evidence doesn't give police carte blanche to search every nook and cranny for evidence of unrelated crimes. For example, a warrant to search for illegal firearms doesn't allow police to read your financial documents for evidence of tax evasion. Nor does a warrant to search your computer for specific evidence give police the right to open and examine every file on your hard drive.

This issue is still in debate, so you should consult with an Albuquerque criminal attorney with up-to-date knowledge on the latest case law, but here are some of the main arguments your attorney may wish to present that a computer search was improper.

Police can do searches for specific keywords, and computer forensic experts have advanced tools that can filter files based on different criteria. They do not need to open each file and inspect its contents to look for relevant evidence as they might do when looking through a file cabinet.

Imagine that a search warrant specifies that police can search your computer for e-mails relating to suspected fraud. E-mails stored on your computer have a identifiable file extensions. Police should not review image files or other unrelated file extensions since this would exceed the scope of the warrant. On occasion, law enforcement will stumble on to evidence of other crimes as they unlawfully peruse the contents of a suspect's computer. In cases where the scope of the warrant has been exceeded, a criminal defendant may want to challenge the scope of the search. A search may be unlawful under the 4th Amendment if it exceeds to legal scope of the warrant meriting the suppression of any illegally gathered evidence.

Because these issues are complex both legally and technologically, it may be necessary to obtain expert computer forensics assistance in figuring out exactly what transpired during the search of your computer. In order to determine the scope and legality of a search, it may be necessary to retrace the computer search. This is not a simple process requiring expert assistance which is well beyond the aptitude of most criminal defense attorneys (including this one).

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The New Mexico Supreme Court case of State v. Guthrie addresses the rights of defendants in probation violation hearings to due process and confrontation of the State's witnesses. The court determined that the rights of probationers in probation violation hearings were measured on a "sliding scale with extremes at either end and much balancing and weighing of competing interests in between."

The facts of the Guthrie case are pretty straightforward. The defendant failed to complete a residential treatment program required under the terms of his probation. The probation officer that filed the probation violation report had been relocated and was unable to attend the hearing. In her place, her supervisor testified to the contents for her report and the contents of the probation file. The supervisor had no direct knowledge of the probation violation and had never met or spoken with the defendant or the residential treatment facility.

The defendant did not dispute that he had not completed treatment and it was taken as an undisputed fact. The defendant's objections at the probation hearing were strictly related to the violation of his right to confront and cross examine his probation officer. The district court found the evidence of violation sufficient for the revocation of defendant's probation. The defendant filed an appeal arguing a violation of due process and his right to confrontation of witnesses.

The Court cited the U.S. Supreme Court Morrissey v. Brewer for the proposition that probation revocation hearings are rather informal depriving a defendant not of an absolute liberty but only a conditional liberty under the terms of probation. Because revocation of probation addresses on conditional liberties, the Court reasoned that the full spectrum of criminal trial rights do not apply.

Under Morrissey, live testimony of probation officers is not always required. Instead, the court may rely on a variety of hearsay evidence such as affidavits, depositions, and documentary evidence. The Court stated further that it had no intention of preventing the State "from developing other creative solutions" suggesting ever greater latitude for courts and prosecutors in probation violation settings.

In short, the Court in Guthrie found that the live testimony of the defendant's probation officer was not necessary. The Court also emphasized that whether or not defendant completed treatment was a simple factual determination not susceptible to subjective interpretation. The failure of the defendant to offer any rebuttal evidence to suggest otherwise weighed heavily on the Court's ruling. The Court suggested that due process and the right to confrontation might require live testimony where the violation of probation was in dispute and/or relied on more subjective criteria.

The specific findings of the case are not so troubling as the broad parameters the Court set forth for probation violations. As it stands, the due process and confrontation rights of probationers are tenuous at best. After all, a sliding scale of justice with creative prosecution is not where a defendant would like to be.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Rule 5-503 of New Mexico District Court Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that any State witnesses be made available for pretrial interview by the defense. There are comparable rules for both Metropolitan Court and Magistrate Court. The New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Curtis Harper lays down some guidelines on the application of the Rule. In so doing, it also added a significant level of confusion.

The Harper case involved charges of criminal sexual penetration of a minor. Among the State's witnesses was an expert psychologist. The State failed to make the expert available for interview by the defense despite several direct orders from the district court judge to do so. The State's reason for refusing the interview was that the defense had failed to pay the doctor's expert witness fees. The district court judge determined that Rule 5-503 overrode any such considerations and ultimately suppressed the testimony of the State's expert. The State appealed the suppression of the expert.

The Court of Appeals ruled that the State did have duty to provide the witness for interview. The Court ruled that the requirements of Rule 5-503 were unconditional. The Court ruled that once the State undertakes the duty to provide interviews, those interviews must be provided. The Court suggested that the State obtains some advantage by taking on responsibility for the interviews since the State is then present and can hear the questions asked by the defense and prepare accordingly. The State cannot both insist on participation in the pretrial interview process and refuse to make its witnesses available.

The Court specifically addressed the State's position that an expert could be withheld from the defense until expert witness fees were paid. The Court stated that this position was unacceptable and that the prosecutor could not stand as a "preemptive guarantor of the fee." The Court then stated that any prosecutor engaging in this conduct would see its case suffer the consequences.

So far so good for the defendant's 6th Amendment rights to confrontation of witnesses. It appeared the Court was moving toward a ruling that would disallow hoisting the expense of the State's experts on to the defense and that such behavior would result in the suppression of the expert's testimony. Unfortunately, the Court declined to do either.

Instead, the Court suggested that the defense could and would in fact be compelled to pay expert witness fees in order to interview the State's expert witnesses in a criminal case. In the end, the Court also stated that the failure of the State to provide the interviews in direct violation of the district court's orders to do so was not so prejudicial to the defendant as to merit suppression.

In the end, the whole judicial exercise was rendered rather meaningless. The Court in essence stated that the rules requiring the State to make witnesses available to the defense were unconditional; that an expert could not be withheld for failure to pay fees; and that the State's case would suffer in the event that it failed to abide by the rule.

After saying all this, the Court then ruled such behavior would not result in suppression. The ruling is quite puzzling as it is hard to see how the State's case has suffered despite clear violation of both the rules of procedure and the Court's own dictates. The ruling in fact simply added confusion to an already confusing area of criminal procedure.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The New Mexico Court of Appeals has drawn strict parameters around appeals of grand jury indictments. In so doing, it appears that the reach of Jones v. Murdoch has been sharply curtailed.

In State v. Yaw, the defendants through their attorneys issued a "Murdoch letter" to the prosecutor requested certain exculpatory information be presented to the grand jury under Jones v. Murdoch. The prosecutor did not comply with the request of the defendant.

Under Jones v. Murdoch, a hearing was held by the district court judge to determine whether the evidence should be presented. The district court judge determined that the evidence need not be presented to the grand jury.

The grand jury hearing was held. The proposed exculpatory evidence was not presented. The defendants were indicted. Following the indictment, the defendants appealed.

State v. Yaw sets forth some interesting and important guidelines regarding the operation and effect of Jones v. Murdoch. The Court of Appeals drew a distinction between appeals of grand jury process and reviews of grand jury evidence.

The Court asserted that violations of grand jury process are always appealable citing such improprieties as improper persons in the grand jury room or failure to instruct on the elements of the offense. To the contrary, the Court ruled that evidentiary findings by the grand jury would not be reviewed.

This seems to be a rather odd ruling in light of Jones v. Murdoch since by definition, failure to present exculpatory evidence suggests a review of the evidence. To resolve this apparent contradiction, the Court distinguished between pre-indictment appeal and post indictment appeal then basically rules their are no rights to appeal on either.

Interestingly, the Court stated that Jones v. Murdoch provided for no appeal of the district court's ruling except under extreme circumstances on the filing of an extraordinary writ. These cases appear from the Court's ruling to be limited to cases of prosecutorial misconduct. The Court stated that the defendant must show bad faith on the part of the prosecutor in its failure to present the exculpatory evidence. Unfortunately, the Court failed to define precisely what it meant by bad faith or prosecutorial misconduct.

In light of the great deference provided to the district court in ruling on the admission of Murdoch letter evidence, the hurdle seems almost insurmountable. For all practical purposes, except in the most extreme cases, the ruling of the district court is final under State v. Yaw. Hopefully, the case will be taken up by the New Mexico Supreme Court. As it stands under Yaw, defendants are left with pretty no remedy for violations of their grand jury rights under Jones v. Murdoch.

A Nolle Prosequi or simply Nolle is considered a good outcome in a criminal case. However, this must be qualified since the Nolle is not necessarily the end of the case.

A Nolle is usually entered without prejudice. This means that the district attorney or prosecutor can re-file the charges at a later date. The Nolle will not generally toll the speedy trial rule which at the metropolitan and magistrate court levels is construed to be six months. As such, the prosecutor must re-file within the six month period.

Nolle's are typically entered when the prosecutor has been unable to make the state's witnesses available for pre-trial interview by the defense. Likewise, the prosecutor may be unable to get the state's witnesses to trial. This situation is not uncommon. It may occur in DWI cases when the officers are not available for interview and or trial. The incidence of dismissal in DWI cases has gone down significantly since the Albuquerque Police Department discontinued the DWI team concept. In the past, there would typically be two officers involved, one that made the traffic stop and another DWI unit officer who conducted the DWI investigation. The team concept required both officers presence for pre-trial interviews and for trial. If either was unavailable, the case would be dismissed.

On other occasions, critical evidence may be missing or otherwise unavailable such as police reports, witness statements, lab or test results and so on. This last situation is fairly rare but does occur on occasion. A missing police report is hard for the prosecutor to overcome. Missing witness statements may provide grounds for a dismissal or at least suppression of certain evidence. Missing lab or test results in some cases may be insurmountable for the prosecution. However, in DWI cases, missing breath or blood alcohol scores are a mere nuisance to the prosecution due to the impaired to the slightest degree standard. The breath score is simply unnecessary for a conviction if there is any admission of alcohol.

Though the Nolle is never a bad thing, it likewise is not a permanent thing until the six month speedy trial run has run. Often, upon entering a Nolle, the prosecutor will be able to collect missing evidence and locate missing witnesses. If done in a timely manner, the prosecutor can then re-file. There are those instances where the case is re-filed at the last minute just before the speedy trial rule runs. There are some judges that will not allow this practice due to the severely prejudicial effect it has on defendants. There are others that will let it slide. Unfortunately, short of appeal, the outcome may rest entirely on pure luck of the draw.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The first and among the most serious consequences a person arrested for DWI/DUI will face is the revocation of their driving privileges through Motor Vehicles Division (MVD). In fact, a DWI driver has only 10 days from the date of arrest to send in a Request for License Revocation Hearing to MVD. Failure to send in the request results in automatic revocation.

There is much confusion with DWI drivers about the jurisdictional issues between the MVD revocation and the criminal DWI proceeding. In fact, the two are completely separate. In other words, you can win at the MVD hearing and still lose at trial in the criminal proceeding. Likewise, you can lose at the MVD hearing and win at trial.

Both MVD and the criminal court have the authority to revoke the DWI offender's driving privileges. The length of the revocation depends on the number of DWI convictions and whether the charge was aggravated DWI.

In addition to the overlapping jurisdiction over driving privileges, the period of revocation may be different between MVD and the criminal court. For example, on a first time simple DWI (non-aggravated DWI), the revocation by MVD is 6 months. Upon conviction in the criminal proceeding, there is a mandatory one year interlock requirement.

With both the MVD revocation and the interlock requirement imposed as a result of the criminal conviction, driving without an interlock and an interlock license results in criminal charges for driving on a revoked license. A conviction for driving on a revoked license carries up to one year in jail.

The criminal court may impose he revocation from the time of the conviction. The MVD hearing often occurs much earlier than the criminal trial since it must be set by law within 90 days of the arrest. The court may, but does not have to, allow for credit for the MVD interlock period. Therefore, the actual revocation and interlock period may stretch beyond one year even on a simple first DWI.

Finally, the burdens of proof are different between the two hearings. The recent case of Glenn v. MVD has significantly lessened the burdens at the MVD hearing. Under the Glenn case, the state need not even prove the stop was legal. As a result of this case, the MVD hearing is even more formality than before since the State need only show the hearing was held within 90 days of arrest and the driver blew .08 or above or refused to blow.

The burdens are no better in the criminal proceeding. The State need only show (argue) that the driver's ability to drive was "impaired to the slightest degree" by alcohol. This is really no standard at all. On the upside, the State is supposed to show that the driver was legally stopped. This again is a fairly low burden since a reason can always almost always be found for pulling over a driver.

The bottom line is that a DWI seriously jeopardizes driving privileges. The driver and his or her attorney must run a gauntlet of hearings where the burdens are seriously stacked against them. In fact, it is pretty rare that a DWI arrest will not result in the revocation of driving privileges in some fashion unless the officers simply do not show up to fight.

And the moral to the story is "Don't Drink and Drive." It is not worth it.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Under New Mexico law, the courts maintain jurisdiction over criminal cases for the duration of the probationary period. It was made clear in the New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Jose Alfredo Ordunez that once the probationary period has lapsed, the court loses jurisdiction over the defendant.

The Ordunez case held that any action by the state for violations of probation must be filed within the probationary period. As such, once the probationary period has lapsed, the State is barred from filing for a revocation of probation. In fact, this is what occurred in Ordunez. The State failed to file for revocation of probation prior to the end of the defendant's probationary period thereby defeating the court's jurisdiction.

Though not pivotal to the outcome of the case, the court also addressed the issue of tolling of the jurisdictional limits when a defendant absconds from justice. In other words, the court addressed what happens when the defendant disappears following a probation violation for which revocation could be filed.

As an aside, disappearing while on probation is typically itself a violation of probation. More often, a separate violation of probation precipitates the disappearance due to defendant's knowledge of the coming probation revocation and possible incarceration. There are defendants who mistakenly believe that if they disappear long enough for their probation to end, they are somehow off the hook.

The Court in Ordunez cited both statute and case law to the contrary. NMSA §31-21-15(C) states:

"if it is found that a warrant for the return of a probationer cannot be served, the probationer is a fugitive from justice. After hearing upon return, if it appears that he has violated the provisions of his release, the court shall determine whether the time from the date of violation to the date of his arrest, or any part of it, shall be counted as time served on probation."

It is clear from the language of the statute as well as the Court's language in Ordunez among other cases that "a probationer cannot defeat the district court's jurisdiction merely by remaining a fugitive from justice until he probation period has run."

In short, as unpleasant as it may be, a violation of probation must be dealt with by a defendant. In fact, as many have found, the consequences of running from the violation are often more serious than the violation itself.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

In the case of criminal charges in New Mexico, a conditional discharge is often a very positive outcome. A conditional discharge will result in the eventual dismissal of the charges.

A conditional discharge allows for the disposition of the criminal charges without an adjudication of guilt. This means that the defendant is never found guilty of any crime so long as all conditions of probation are met.

However, to get a conditional discharge, the defendant must enter a plea of guilty or no-contest. In the event of a violation of the terms of the conditional discharge, the plea then turns into a conviction.

The conditional discharge does not wipe the record clean. Though there is no conviction, there will always remain a record of the charges and the proceedings. As such, anyone doing a background check on the defendant will see that the charges were filed and dismissed.

Because there was no conviction, many defendants believe that the record should be expunged. The mere fact of the charges can have very serious consequences in the future. Unfortunately, despite the fact of the dismissal, the New Mexico Courts have held consistently the right to expungement to be very limited.

The issue came up most recently in State v. C.L. State v. C.L. addressed in depth the right to an expungement. In State v. C.L., a showing of adverse employment consequences due to the court record was expressly held to be insufficient for an expungement. Under the New Mexico Court of Appeals ruling in C.L., an expungement is possible only in case of a finding of unlawful arrest or unlawful conviction.

Unfortunately, a conditional discharge meets neither of these criteria. The conditional discharge is meant as a second chance of sorts. However, a conditional discharge will not completely wipe the record clean. This is possible only through expungement which is difficult and rare to put it mildly.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Juvenile criminal offenders may be charged as adults for the commission of very serious criminal offenses. In order to charge the child as an adult, and thereby expose the child to adult criminal sentencing, the Court must conduct an amenability hearing.

The amenability hearing is held to determine whether or not the juvenile is amenable to treatment and rehabilitation through the juvenile justice system. If the court finds the juvenile is not amenable to treatment and rehabilitation, then the child is tried as an adult. The consequences for the child are enormous as the child is taken outside the sentencing scheme of the juvenile justice code which limits possible incarceration up to the child's 21st birthday.

The New Mexico Supreme Court in State v. Rudy B took up the issue of whether amenability findings should be determined by a jury. In New Mexico, these findings have always been done by the judge. The attorneys for Rudy B challenged the judge based amenability under the 2000 Unites States Supreme Court case of Apprendi v. New Jersey.

Apprendi held that any fact that would result in a penalty beyond the statutory maximum must be heard and determined by a jury. Certainly, an amenability hearing involves facts and evidence that would lead to penalties beyond the maximum sentencing under the juvenile code. In very serious cases, such as the violent offenses involved in Rudy B, the defendant is looking at some very lengthy incarceration well beyond the typical jurisdiction of the juvenile courts.

The Rudy B opinion was pretty lengthy going into the history of amenability adjudications in New Mexico, Apprendi and Oregon v. Ice. The 2009 U.S. Supreme Court in Oregon v. Ice allowed an exception to Apprendi in a case involving concurrent sentencing. However, Oregon v. Ice seemed to be fact specific in that the concurrent sentencing was for completely separate and independent criminal acts.

The New Mexico Supreme Court then framed the discussion of Oregon v. Ice as the refusal of the Court to extend the role of the jury into concurrent v. consecutive sentencing settings where the jury had traditionally played no role. This was an interesting stretch of logic in to say the least.

The Court in Rudy B, based upon its reading of Oregon v. Ice, then took us through the history of amenability hearings in New Mexico. In the end, after a nostalgic trip through history, the Court said judge based amenability was not a violation of Apprendi because it had always been done this way in New Mexico.

It is interesting and disappointing that the Court would resort to the same logic that has reinforced all manners of legal and social injustice in the past: "It's just the way it is. It has always been this way."

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The 6th Amendment's confrontation clause is crucial in criminal trials because it allows defendants to have a fair trial which the framers spelled out in the Constitution of the United States. The 6th Amendment of the Constitution protects an individual's right to confront their accuser at trial in a criminal case.

The confrontation clause bars the admission of hearsay evidence unless the out of court declarant testifies at trial. In other words, the statements of a witness or alleged victim cannot be admitted into court without the witness' or alleged victim's in-court testimony.

This is particularly important in domestic violence cases. When an alleged victim accuses a person of domestic violence, the alleged victim's and any other witness' statements can only be used against the defendant if they show up to court and testify. There are few exceptions to the rules prohibiting hearsay testimony. These rules would rarely apply in the typical domestic violence case.

At trial, the defendant has a right to cross examine the alleged victim and other State witnesses to determine the truthfulness of their statements. When an alleged victim does not show up to trial, the State usually does not have the necessary evidence to present their case.

By only presenting evidence of a crime without actually having a victim appear in court, the prosecution is attempting evidence based prosecution. Evidence based prosecution which is often attempted by prosecutors in domestic violence cases faces many challenges due to hearsay objections and confrontation issues under the 6th Amendment.

For example, prosecutors will frequently obtain the alleged victim's 911 call. As part of evidence based prosecution, the State may attempt to use the 911 tapes to prove that the defendant committed the alleged act of domestic violence such as battery or assault on a household member. In doing so, the State may argue that this is public record and try to admit this evidence.

The State is attempting to recreate the drama of the alleged incident to a jury through the 911 call. The State is also attempting to illicit statements from the 911 call which may implicate the defendant in wrong-doing. However, once the 911 operator begins to engage in any type of questioning, the statements are then testimonial hearsay and the confrontation clause bars this evidence from use at trial. Perhaps just as problematic is the identification of the caller. This issue would be raised as an objection for failure to authenticate the caller's identification.

If the State's only case is evidence based prosecution without eyewitness testimony, the State has an uphill battle when presenting its case. The prosecution will have a hard time overcoming the evidentiary objections to hearsay and authentication.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees individuals the right to fair and reasonable bail. Most importantly, it protects individuals from excessive bail.

The purpose of bail bonds are twofold. First, it allows people to be free from incarceration while the criminal process is proceeding. Second, it acts as a guarantee that a defendant will show up to court or they forfeit their money.

Bond amounts are set by the judge who bases the decision on the severity of the crime, a person's criminal history, the individual's flight risk potential, among other considerations. A judge may place a no bond hold on a person if the defendant is found to be a flight risk. In the absence of flight risk, the judge should set a reasonable bail based upon the entirety of the circumstances.

The Court will typically set a cash or surety bail. This means that the defendant may post the entire amount of the bail in cash on his or her own. Most defendants are not in a position to post the entire cash bond. Bail bondsmen serve a very valuable service in allowing the defendant to post bail with only a small portion of the total bail amount. Typically, the bonds company's fees will be 10% to 15% of the total bail.

The bond fees are nonrefundable. Bail bondsmen are licensed and bonded with the state to post bond for individuals to get them out of jail very quickly. The bail bondsman is then responsible for ensuring that the bonded defendant shows up to court. If they don't, the bond company forfeits its bond. The seemingly high fees are to compensate the bond company for that risk.

Some individuals can post the cash bail. Typically, the bail will come from friends or family. A person who pays for the bond is then responsible for the defendant showing up to court. If the defendant does not show, like a bond company, the friends or family will lose their money.

When a defendant does not show for a hearing, a couple of things happen. First, a bench warrant is issued. Second, the bond is forfeited and the court seizes the money. All is not lost for the bond company, friend or family member. If they or law enforcement can secure the defendant's appearance, they can get their bond once the case is concluded. This accounts for the very aggressive "collection efforts" of bail bonding companies when a defendant flees.

Whenever the defendant is finally brought to court, either voluntarily, by execution of the bench warrant, or through the services of the bond company, a no bond hold will then be placed on the defendant. At that point, neither the defendant nor the bond is going anywhere until the case has been concluded.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

The great majority of juvenile criminal cases, whether misdemeanor or felony, do not go to trial but end with a plea bargain.

As part of the plea bargain the delinquent child is usually put on probation. As soon as the plea agreement is signed the judge orders the delinquent child to meet with an intake probation officer, and then they are assigned a permanent probation officer.

Terms of probation range from six months to 2 years though the court can exercise jurisdiction and extend probation until the delinquent turns 21. In fact, every offense under the juvenile code carries up to two years in detention. Actual incarceration is the exception for all but the most serious and/or serial repeat offenders and those children that simply will not comply with the terms of probation.

It is the job of the probation officer to monitor the child to make sure they are in compliance with their probation agreement. Some of the conditions in the probation agreement include but are not limited to obeying all state and federal laws, going to school, not possessing weapons, not associating with certain individuals, restrictions on driving privileges and getting a job. In addition, there are two more that trip kids up the most: violations of curfew and violation of the prohibition on the use of drugs or alcohol (particularly marijuana).

Probation Officers set up appointments for the child to come to their office so they can meet. During that meeting the Juvenile Probation Officer will often ask the child to take a urine analysis to test for drugs and alcohol. If the child tests positive for drugs or alcohol the probation officer can ask the children's court attorney to revoke the delinquent's probation and spend the rest of their sentence in jail. More common for a first dirty urine test, the probation officer will call for more frequent meetings with probation along with random urine testing.

Assuming all else fails in the supervision of the child, the probation officer may recommend the revocation of probation. In order to revoke the child's probation, the children's court attorney must file a probation violation which will be followed by a hearing where the probation officer states the violation and makes a recommendation to the Judge. The Judge may revoke probation or some other type of sanction to get the child's attention to comply with the probation agreement.

If at the tail end of a probationary period the child is not complying and the child is over the age of eighteen, the probation officer may suggest a 15 day and cut. A fifteen day and cut means that the child will spend 15 days in jail and is cut from probation with an unsatisfactory discharge.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for those children that are serious about turning things around, the probation officer does have discretion to request that the court release the child from probation early. As such, if a child is doing well on probation, the probation officer may ask the Judge to reduce the amount of time the child is on probation. This should serve as a great incentive for compliance if possible detention is not enough.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The juvenile criminal justice system's philosophy is treatment based rather than detention or punishment based. In Albuquerque and Rio Rancho in particular, the juvenile justice system tends to be more liberal toward first time non-violent criminal offenders.

In fact, minor first time offenses such as minor misdemeanor cases are often resolved informally with the juvenile probation office through informal probation. In these cases, the file is not even forwarded to the prosecutor. If the case is sent to the prosecutor, there is still a chance on first time non-violent offenses to resolve the case early in the process.

In the interest of rehabilitation, the District attorney or prosecutor will often give the child a break on a first time non-violent offense. This break typically comes in the form of a Time Waiver. The Time Waiver is a document which is unique to the juvenile justice system. Under the United States Constitution, all those charged with a crime including children are entitled to a speedy trial. The Time Waiver is a document that waives an individual's right to a speedy trial. It basically tolls the case for a period of 6 months. So long as the child stays out of trouble and complies with all conditions of the Time Waiver during the 6 month period, the District Attorney will dismiss the case.

By entering a Time Waiver, the State is allowed to sit on the case for 6 months without the threat of dismissal on speedy trial grounds. Essentially, the Time Waiver allows the District Attorney to maintain some level of supervision over the child without a conviction or formal probation. Outside of an outright dismissal of the charges, which is very rare, a Time Waiver is the most favorable resolution that a child may expect.

There is of course no guarantee that a child will get a Time Waiver. There are a number of factors the district attorney will consider in the offer of a Time Waiver. The most immediate is of course the seriousness of the charges. Other factors include the child's prior contacts with law enforcement, criminal background, gang affiliation, school attendance and grades.

Perhaps the most important factor is the parental support and supervision of the child. Prior to criminal charges, the juvenile probation officer will meet with the child and the parents during a preliminary inquiry to find out how the child is doing in school and at home. The juvenile probation officer will seek to determine whether or not there is a good home environment with strong parental support. If the parents are supportive, the child is doing well in school and the charges are for a first time non-violent offense, then there is ,at least in Albuquerque and Rio Rancho (other jurisdictions will vary), the possibility of Time Waiver.

The Time Waiver is a very favorable outcome. It is hoped by all in the juvenile justice system that the Time Waiver is sufficient to get the child back on track. If it does not, then the next go around is likely to be significantly more unpleasant for the child.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys
www.CollinsAttorneys.com