AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted for two counts of sexual exploitation of children (distribution/depiction) following a conditional guilty plea. The central issue arose from the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of a residence, which he argued was conducted without consent or a valid search warrant. The search was purportedly consented to by the Defendant's wife, a claim contested by the Defendant who argued that the consent was not validly obtained (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a residence, claiming the search was conducted without consent or a valid search warrant. Contended that the testimony of Detective Miranda, which was used to establish consent for the search, was based on hearsay and thus insufficient to support the denial of the motion to suppress (paras 2, 4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Maintained that the evidence obtained from the search was admissible, arguing that hearsay and double hearsay testimony are permissible at a suppression hearing to determine the constitutionality of a search and seizure. The State relied on the affidavit and testimony of Detective Miranda to establish that consent for the search was validly obtained (paras 5-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of a residence without consent or a valid search warrant.
• Whether hearsay and double hearsay testimony are admissible at a suppression hearing to prove authority to consent to search.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search of the residence (para 9).

Reasons

• The Court, per Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Timothy L. Garcia and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that the district court did not err in its decision to deny the Defendant's motion to suppress. The Court reasoned that the State is permitted to rely on hearsay and double hearsay testimony at a suppression hearing to determine the constitutionality of a search and seizure. It was noted that the Rules of Evidence, except for rules on privileges, do not apply at suppression hearings. The Court found that Detective Miranda's affidavit and testimony were sufficient to establish that consent for the search was validly obtained. Additionally, the Court addressed the Defendant's reference to the New Mexico Constitution, stating that the Defendant did not advance any argument as to how the New Mexico Constitution would preclude the admission of out-of-court statements at a suppression hearing to show consent. Therefore, the Court declined to examine this issue further (paras 3-9).