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, Pamela Craddock, entered a conditional plea to charges of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer but reserved her right to appeal on various grounds, including the denial of her motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred in denying her motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, asserting that there were undisputed facts and enough testimony, including video evidence, to infer that she should not have been investigated and arrested for resisting, evading, and obstructing an officer (paras 3-4).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's arguments are not directly summarized in the decision, but it can be inferred that the State opposed the Defendant's motion to dismiss and supported the trial court's decision to deny the motion based on the legal standards for dismissing a case prior to trial (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause, considering the factual questions related to the charge of resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of probable cause (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Cynthia A. Fry, J., with Michael E. Vigil, J., and Linda M. Vanzi, J., concurring: The Court concluded that the Defendant's motion to dismiss involved factual matters that were not capable of resolution without a trial on the merits. Citing New Mexico Supreme Court case law, the Court reasoned that where a motion to dismiss requires resolution of factual issues that must also be resolved as part of a trial, the trial court lacks the authority to grant the motion prior to trial. The Court found that the Defendant's attempt to have the district court make a factual determination on matters identical to those presented by the charges was inappropriate prior to trial. Additionally, the Court noted that the district court's act of hearing evidence on an issue it does not have authority to consider prior to trial does not demonstrate that it possessed the authority to grant the Defendant the relief requested. The Court also addressed the Defendant's assertion that there were facts from which a reasonable jury could infer that the Defendant should not have been subject to further investigation, stating that such questions must be submitted to the finder of fact and are not capable of determination without a trial on the merits (paras 2-5).