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

• Petitioner Greg Collier was charged with extreme animal cruelty after using questionable training techniques on a colt named Cowboy, resulting in the animal's death. Collier sought a hearing before the New Mexico Livestock Board to determine if his use of "hobbling" as a training technique was a commonly accepted agricultural animal husbandry practice, exempting him from cruelty charges under Section 30-18-1(I)(4). The criminal court denied his request for a hearing, and after a series of trials and appeals, the Supreme Court remanded Collier's criminal case for trial, reinstating the animal cruelty charge (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• State v. Collier, 2013-NMSC-015: The Supreme Court reversed the criminal court's dismissal of the animal cruelty charge against Collier and remanded the case for trial.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the New Mexico Livestock Board has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to hold a hearing under Section 30-18-1(J) to determine if "hobbling" is a commonly accepted agricultural animal husbandry practice, and that the district court, not the criminal court, is the appropriate forum to compel the Livestock Board to hold such a hearing (paras 8, 14).
• Respondents-Appellees: Contended that there was no "dispute" for the Livestock Board to resolve since the criminal court dismissed Collier's animal cruelty charge, making the matter not "ripe" for a mandamus action or under the Declaratory Judgment Act. They also argued that only a district court in a pending criminal case has the authority to order a Section 30-18-1(J) hearing (paras 9, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Livestock Board has a mandatory, non-discretionary duty to hold a hearing under Section 30-18-1(J) to determine if "hobbling" is a commonly accepted agricultural animal husbandry practice.
• Whether the district court or the criminal court is the appropriate forum to compel the Livestock Board to hold a Section 30-18-1(J) hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order dismissing Collier's petition for mandamus, alternative writ of mandanus, and complaint for declaratory relief, holding that Collier did not state a proper claim for mandamus or declaratory relief at this time (para 28).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge James J. Wechsler, held that under Section 30-18-1, the district court in a criminal case is the proper forum to determine whether a dispute exists regarding whether a defendant’s conduct is a commonly accepted agricultural animal husbandry practice pursuant to Section 30-18-1(I)(4). If so, the court in the criminal proceedings must order the Livestock Board to hold a Section 30-18-1(J) hearing. Since Collier had not filed a motion in the criminal court to address this issue and request a hearing, his petition did not state a proper claim for mandamus or declaratory relief. The Court reasoned that the legislative purpose of Section 30-18-1(J) is best fulfilled by allowing the Livestock Board to resolve disputes about commonly accepted agricultural animal husbandry practices while preventing premature interference with criminal proceedings involving exceptions to the offense of cruelty to an animal (paras 14, 22-24).