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 Child-Appellant, Steven A., was charged with criminal trespass for allegedly entering or remaining at a recreational center (Rec Center) in Carlsbad, Eddy County, New Mexico, from which permission had been denied or withdrawn. The charge stemmed from an incident on July 22, 2014, where a Rec Center attendant and a police officer testified that the Child was on the premises despite a criminal trespass warning (CTW) against him. The Child's knowledge of the CTW and his refusal to leave the property in a timely manner after being informed were central to the case (paras 2, 4-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Child knowingly entered or remained on the Rec Center property despite having been issued a CTW and that his presence on the property and acknowledgment of the CTW constituted criminal trespass (paras 2, 5-6).
• Appellant (Steven A., Child): Contended that his rights to double jeopardy and due process were violated, challenged the admission of his statement acknowledging awareness of the CTW, argued insufficient evidence for criminal trespass, and claimed error in admitting hearsay testimony regarding the CTW (paras 1, 10-14, 17, 21, 27).

Legal Issues

• Whether the children’s court violated the Child's right to be free from double jeopardy by rejecting the special master’s recommendations without a hearing (para 10).
• Whether the children’s court violated the Child's right to due process by reviewing and reversing the special master’s recommendations without a hearing (para 13).
• Whether the special master erred by admitting into evidence the Child's statement acknowledging he was not allowed on the premises (para 14).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence of criminal trespass (para 21).
• Whether the special master erred by allowing inadmissible hearsay regarding the CTW (para 27).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the children’s court decision that adjudicated the Child as delinquent for criminal trespass (para 32).

Reasons

• LINDA M. VANZI, Chief Judge, with J. MILES HANISEE and HENRY M. BOHNHOFF, Judges concurring: The court found that the Child's double jeopardy and due process rights were not violated as he failed to preserve these issues for appeal and did not sufficiently develop his arguments. The court also determined that the special master did not err in admitting the Child's statement acknowledging he was not allowed on the premises, as it was not elicited through interrogation or questioning but was a voluntary admission. Furthermore, the court concluded there was sufficient evidence to support the adjudication for criminal trespass, based on testimonies that the Child was on the property after being informed of the CTW and his acknowledgment of this fact. Lastly, the court held that the testimony regarding the CTW was not hearsay as it was a statement made by the witness in court about what she told the Child, not an out-of-court statement made by another declarant (paras 10-31).