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 former detective with the Doña Ana Sheriff’s Office (DASO) was charged with nine counts of tampering with public records and nine counts of tampering with evidence after documents and evidence related to cases he worked on were found unlawfully stored in his prior residence during foreclosure sale preparations.

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: The court dismissed the tampering with public records charges and reduced the tampering with evidence counts to petty misdemeanors, reasoning that the evidence and documents found were not "public records" under the Inspection of Public Records Act (IPRA) and, consequently, the sentencing scheme for the crimes underlying evidence tampering was indeterminate.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the district court erred in dismissing the tampering with public records charges and reducing the tampering with evidence counts to petty misdemeanors. The State contended that the documents found in the defendant's former residence are "public records" under the criminal statute, regardless of IPRA's disclosure exceptions, and alternatively, if clarification was needed, the court should have referred to the Public Records Act (PRA) instead of IPRA (paras 4-5).
• Defendant-Appellee (Vincent L. Lopez): Conceded that IPRA does not apply to this case but argued that the documents did not constitute "public records" under the common law definition of the term. The defendant suggested that government records become "public" only when a person shows a need for the information in maintaining or defending an action. He also argued that the term "public record" is ambiguous within Section 30-26-1 and advocated for the application of the rule of lenity (paras 5, 9-11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in dismissing the tampering with public records charges and reducing the tampering with evidence counts to petty misdemeanors based on its determination that the documents and evidence found were not "public records" under IPRA (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the order of the district court and remanded for further proceedings (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee, Shammara H. Henderson, and Gerald E. Baca concurring, found that the district court erred in its reliance on IPRA to determine what constitutes public records under Section 30-26-1. The court concluded that the investigative reports seized from the defendant's former home are public records within the plain meaning of Section 30-26-1, and the district court erred by looking to IPRA for clarification. The court reasoned that the documents related to past or ongoing criminal investigations made or held by a public agency in the performance of its duty fall within the common usage of "public record" within Section 30-26-1(E). The court also addressed the defendant's reliance on common law and the rule of lenity, finding them unpersuasive and concluding that the statute is not ambiguous regarding the inclusion of the investigative reports and other documents found in the defendant's former home as public records (paras 4-13).