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

• In 2012, Deputy Ramon Maestas of the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office Narcotics Unit received information that Defendant Hever U. Batista-Carrasco was selling heroin in Albuquerque. Following an investigation that included surveillance of the home of Defendant's brother, Angel Batista-Carrasco, a search warrant was executed on Defendant's and Angel's homes and two vehicles. During the operation, Defendant was detained, advised of his rights, and made incriminating statements about his and his brother's involvement in heroin distribution. A search of Angel's home yielded 280 grams of heroin, digital scales, and a ledger (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not suppressing his incriminating statements as they were not recorded prior to his arrest, contended the State presented insufficient evidence to support his convictions, and claimed the district court erred in not excluding a witness from testifying at his trial (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Opposed Defendant's arguments by asserting that the Defendant was not in custody for the purposes of the recording requirement, argued that there was sufficient evidence for the convictions, and defended the district court's decision to allow the witness to testify (paras 6, 10, 22, 31).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not suppressing incriminating statements made by the Defendant because they were not recorded prior to his arrest.
• Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions for trafficking heroin and conspiracy to commit trafficking heroin.
• Whether the district court erred in not excluding a witness from testifying at the Defendant's trial (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's convictions for trafficking heroin (by possession with intent to distribute) and conspiracy to commit trafficking heroin (by possession with intent to distribute) (para 33).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge M. Monica Zamora, with Judges Michael E. Vigil and Stephen G. French concurring, held that:
  The district court did not err in refusing to suppress the Defendant's statements as Section 29-1-16(I) explicitly states that it shall not be construed to exclude otherwise admissible evidence in any judicial proceeding, meaning the failure to record the Defendant's statements did not mandate their suppression (paras 11-14).
  The Defendant did not preserve his argument that Section 29-1-16 is unconstitutional under the New Mexico Constitution, as he failed to develop the necessary factual background through a proper evidentiary hearing and did not raise the applicable constitutional provision at trial (paras 15-17).
  Admission of the Defendant's statements was not plain or fundamental error under the New Mexico Constitution, as the Defendant was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witness regarding the unrecorded statements, and there was no error in admitting the statements into evidence (paras 18-20).
  There was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's convictions, as the Defendant's own admissions, combined with the physical evidence seized, supported the jury's finding that the Defendant constructively possessed the heroin found in his brother's home (paras 21-29).
  The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to exclude Deputy Maestas as a witness, as the Defendant failed to comply with the scheduling order in his case and did not demonstrate that the district court's decision resulted in severe prejudice (paras 30-32).