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 on probation and faced a probation revocation hearing. The hearing was scheduled to be held in person, with all parties, their counsel, and witnesses physically present at the courthouse. However, the judge, who was based in a different courthouse, participated in the hearing remotely via an audio-visual computer program. The Defendant objected to the judge's virtual participation, arguing it deprived him of his due process rights. The district court overruled this objection (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the remote participation of the district court judge in the probation revocation hearing violated his due process rights, specifically the right to confront witnesses and present his case in front of a physically present fact-finder (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the COVID-19 public health emergency and related restrictions justified the judge's virtual appearance, arguing for a broad interpretation of due process that allows for remote participation under certain conditions (paras 6-7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court judge's remote participation in the probation revocation hearing violated the Defendant's due process rights (para 1).
• Whether there was a particularized necessity or good cause for the judge's virtual appearance that would justify deviation from the general requirement of in-person hearings (para 6).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and remanded for a new hearing, finding that the Defendant was deprived of his constitutional right to be heard in person due to the judge's virtual participation without any justified good cause (para 9).

Reasons

• Per Ives, J. (Hanisee and Duffy, JJ., concurring): The Court found that due process generally requires probation revocation hearings to be held in person, including the physical presence of the fact-finder. The Court agreed with the Defendant that the constitutional guarantee of an "opportunity to be heard in person" implies that both the defendant and the fact-finder should be physically present. The State's argument that the COVID-19 public health emergency provided good cause for the judge's remote participation was not persuasive, as there was no indication in the record of any particularized necessity for the judge's virtual appearance. The Court concluded that the Defendant was deprived of his due process rights because the record lacked any justification for the judge's remote participation. The Court also noted that it was unfair to affirm the district court's ruling based on the State's late argument regarding the applicability of New Mexico Supreme Court Public Health Emergency Protocols, as the Defendant had no opportunity to respond to this argument at the district court level (paras 2-8).