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 case involves the Defendant, Gabriel Sanchez, who was indicted for first-degree murder, tampering with evidence, and aggravated burglary in connection with the death of William Jimerson. The district court suppressed evidence from Sanchez's cell phone due to a violation of the ten-day warrant execution requirement and excluded evidence of a fire at Jimerson's home allegedly set by Sanchez (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Rio Arriba County: Suppressed evidence from Sanchez's cell phone and excluded evidence of a fire at Jimerson's home (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court erred in suppressing the cell phone evidence and excluding evidence of the fire at Jimerson's home (paras 3, 21).
• Defendant-Appellee (Gabriel Sanchez): Contended that the extraction of data from his cell phone was a warrantless search as it occurred outside the ten-day limit set by Rule 5-211(C) and that the information used to obtain the second warrant was stale, lacking probable cause (para 9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in suppressing evidence from Sanchez's cell phone based on the ten-day warrant execution requirement under Rule 5-211(C) (para 3).
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of a fire at Jimerson's home (para 21).

Disposition

• Reversed the district court’s suppression of the evidence obtained from the cell phone.
• Affirmed the district court’s exclusion of evidence of the fire allegedly set by Sanchez (para 25).

Reasons

• Per BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice (MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice; JUDITH K. NAKAMURA, Justice; C. SHANNON BACON, Justice; DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice concurring): The Supreme Court found that a warrant to search an electronic device is executed when the device is seized or the data is copied on-site within the ten-day limit, not when the data extraction occurs. Since Sanchez's phone was seized within the ten-day limit, the subsequent data extraction did not violate Rule 5-211(C). The court also held that without admissible evidence linking Sanchez to the fire at Jimerson's home, the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the evidence of the fire (paras 2-24).