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

• A ten-year-old child called 911, confessing to shooting his father in the back of the head due to anger. Following this, the State filed a delinquency petition against the child, alleging first-degree murder (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Valencia County: Granted the State's motion to introduce the audio recording of the child's 911 call as substantive evidence, despite the child's opposition (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• State: Initially argued that the child's statements to the 911 operator were "nontestimonial" and thus not barred by NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-14(F). On appeal, abandoned the "nontestimonial" argument, conceding that Section 32A-2-14(F) applies but argued that the statute should be interpreted to allow the statements to rebut the child's incapacity defense (paras 3-4).
• Child-Appellant: Argued that NMSA 1978, Sections 32A-2-14(D), (F) (2009) bar the admission of his statements to the 911 operator (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the child's statements to the 911 operator are admissible under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-14(F) (para 1).

Disposition

• The order allowing the admission of the child's statements to the 911 operator was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Children’s Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (para 12).

Reasons

• Judges Timothy L. Garcia, James J. Wechsler, and Cynthia A. Fry concurred in the opinion authored by Judge Garcia. The court held that Section 32A-2-14(F) bars the admission of the child's statements to the 911 operator "with regard to," "with reference or relation to," or "about" the allegations of the delinquency petition. This interpretation aligns with the Supreme Court's determination that Section 32A-2-14(F) provides complete protection for children under thirteen, leaving no avenue for the State to introduce their statements, regardless of the context or to whom they were made. The court concluded that the State's desire to introduce the child's 911 statements to address his capacity to commit first-degree murder was indeed "with regard to," "in relation to," or "about" the allegations of the delinquency petition, thus barring their introduction under Section 32A-2-14(F) (paras 7-11).