Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

There can be both civil or criminal domestic violence no-contact orders against an accused. Violation of either the Family Violence Protection Act Order of Protection or a no-contact order in a criminal domestic violence action is very serious. Violation of the Order of Protection can result in a number of penalties including orders of contempt and bench warrants. Violation of a no-contact order in a criminal domestic violence action results in additional criminal charges. Repeated or aggravated violations can result in aggravated stalking and other felony charges.

Unfortunately, these results may occur even in cases of inadvertent or innocent violations. Innocent violations such as contact through marital or family counseling and/or exchanges of the children can result in criminal charges for violations of the no-contact provisions in criminal cases. Worse yet, charges may result even if the alleged victim initiated the contact. This often happens when the alleged victim invites contact and then calls the police on contact or upon receiving a text or phone call from the accused. This may happen for any number of reasons. It may be malicious. At times, it could be that the alleged victim is simply confused or conflicted. The defendant may have a defense to the violation in cases where the alleged victim initiated the contact, but it will not prevent the criminal charges, and the stress and costs associated with those charges.

On many occasions, the alleged victim is confused or concerned about the process. The alleged victim may not want to pursue the case but be concerned about the calls or subpoenas from the district attorney's office. Many times, the alleged victim will actually call the accused for advice in these situations. The alleged victim should be seeking independent legal counsel. The accused should not be talking with the alleged victim at all. Certainly, the accused should not be weighing in on issues related to the alleged victim's cooperation in the criminal proceeding.

The accused in these situations should have no contact with the alleged victim. In fact, the accused should have absolutely no contact with the alleged victim under any circumstance when there is an order of protection or no-contact order in place. This includes receiving or returning calls or texts. The accused should under no circumstances advise or direct the alleged victim on how to proceed in the case. It is not uncommon that the alleged victim solicits the advice from the defendant and then passes the advice on to the prosecutor. At this point, an aggressive prosecutor may file charges for tampering or intimidation of a witness. Intimidation of a witness may be charged as a 3rd degree felony carrying felony sentencing. This is so even when where the accused is genuinely concerned about the alleged victim and sincerely trying to help.

If an alleged victim is confused about the process or his or her rights in the process, he or she should contact a criminal defense attorney for advice. The reality is that the process can be just as confusing and frightening to an alleged victim as it is for the accused. This is particularly so in cases that have been blown out of proportion by law enforcement or prosecutors, which at times seems the rule rather than the exception. Unfortunately, alleged victims have little input and no control over the process once it begins. However, they do have rights and a criminal defense attorney will be able to explain those rights along with any legal duties on the alleged victim as the process moves along.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The law in New Mexico regarding the validity of breath alcohol tests (BAC) in DWI/DUI cases has been recently modified by statute. The modification has severely curtailed the use of expert testimony by the defense to attack the validity of the breath alcohol scores. These issues were addressed in the 2009 New Mexico Court of Appeals case of State v. Jenita Chavez.

In the past, DWI/DUI defendants would often bring expert testimony to address the possibility that the blood alcohol levels at the time of driving were different than the levels at the time of BAC. The arguments were based on the absorption rates of alcohol into the blood stream, or retrograde extrapolation. For example, if one were to take a shot of tequila and jump in the car for a quick drive home, it is possible that the alcohol would not have absorbed during the short drive and the driver would suffer no impairment. If the driver is pulled over and later tested at a substation, sometimes hours later, there was an argument that the alcohol had more time to absorb so that the blood alcohol levels at the time of the test were higher than at the time of driving.

The New Mexico legislature took this line of defense away by amendment to the DWI/DUI statute NMSA 66-08-102(C) to read "It is unlawful for ... a person to drive a vehicle in this state if the person has an alcohol concentration of eight one hundredths or more in the person's blood or breath within three hours of driving the vehicle and the alcohol concentration results from alcohol consumed before or while driving the vehicle." Expert testimony on the absorption rates is now largely prohibited in DWI/DUI trials.

However, the court in State v. Chavez recognized that expert testimony may still be available to attack other aspects of the breath alcohol test. In that particular case, the court upheld the exclusion of the expert testimony because the defendant had failed to show the relevance of the testimony for any legitimate line of defense.

The court, citing the 2007 New Mexico Supreme Court case of State v. Martinez, specifically allowed for DWI/DUI expert testimony to attack the accuracy and reliability of the breath alcohol scores. In State v. Chavez, the defendant attempted to admit expert evidence on how the outcome of the test might be impacted by the person giving the sample. The Court stated that the defendant failed to explain the relevance of this testimony other than for purposes of the now prohibited retrograde extrapolation.

In short, there is now a pretty significant burden on the defense to show the relevance of the DWI/DUI expert testimony for purposes of attacking the reliability of the breath alcohol test. And the attack on the BAC cannot have as its basis alcohol absorption and elimination rates.

Parrish Collins
Albuquerque Attorney
www.CollinsAttorneys.com

In New Mexico, a person has a right to defend himself and his home against harm. The long cherished rights of self-defense are clearly established in New Mexico under the State's Uniform Jury Instructions.

New Mexico General Jury Instruction on Self-Defense UJI 14-5190 states that "A person who is threatened with an attack need not retreat. In the exercise of his right of self defense, he may stand his ground and defend himself." New Mexico UJI 14-5180, related to defense of one's property, states that a person may use force that he deems reasonable and necessary to defend his or her property. Of course, the issue will be whether a jury believes the force was reasonable and necessary.

The issue of self-defense will certainly be an issue in the case reported yesterday about the Johns Hopkins University Student who killed an apparent burglar with a samurai sword. The burglar had broken into the student's apartment where he lived with several other students. Upon being confronted by the students, the burglar lunged at the students whereupon he was struck down by the samurai sword.

There is no jury instruction in New Mexico dealing with the flair or style in which one defends his or herself. It seems that this cannot be counted for or against you. So the use of a samurai sword should be deemed irrelevant without more. The Uniform Jury Instructions would seem to indicate that the student not be charged. Unfortunately, there is more to it than that and it is possible that the student will be charged with something, and something quite serious such as homicide or intentional manslaughter, and it will be left to him to assert his defenses. In New Mexico, the outcome would likely be much the same. Fortunately, the student will be armed with the long standing and rather sacred right to defend oneself and one's home from harm.

Parrish Collins
Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
www.collinsattorneys.com