State v. Ayon

538 P.3d 66

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.Ricky Anthony AYON, Defendant-Petitioner.

NO. S-1-SC-38937

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: September 5, 2023

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Meryl E. Francolini, Assistant Attorney General Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent

Law Office of Scott M. Davidson, Scott M. Davidson, Albuquerque, NM, Law Office of Jamison Barkley, LLC, Jamison Barkley, Santa Fe, NM, Angelica Hall, Albuquerque, NM, for Amicus Curiae New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association

THOMSON, Justice.

{1} Under the New Mexico Constitution, the state can bring felony charges in one of two ways: by presenting charges and evidence to a grand jury composed of lay citizens or to a judge at a preliminary hearing. N.M. Const. art. II, § 14. In State v. Martinez , this Court held that a district court has no authority to review the admissibility of evidence considered by a grand jury. 2018-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 1, 39, 420 P.3d 568. This case requires us to make an analogous determination in the context of a Rule 5-302 NMRA¹ preliminary examination (hereinafter "preliminary hearing"). We hold that a district court judge presiding over a preliminary hearing has no authority to decide whether evidence was obtained from an unconstitutional search or seizure.

{2} At his preliminary hearing, Defendant Ricky Ayon successfully challenged the legality of the stop that led to the search incident to his arrest, and the district court refused to bind Defendant over for trial on the charge of heroin possession. The Court of Appeals reversed. Because we agree with the Court of Appeals that the district court exceeded its authority at the preliminary hearing to rule on whether the evidence was obtained from an unconstitutional search or seizure, we affirm and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

{3} Defendant was walking with a bicycle and groceries on Isleta Boulevard in Albuquerque when a Bernalillo County Sheriff's Office deputy called out to him by name. When Defendant approached, the deputy immediately handcuffed him. After Defendant was in handcuffs, the deputy checked the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database and found that Defendant had an active warrant. The deputy placed Defendant under arrest, then searched Defendant and found a small bag of a substance that field-tested as opiates.

{4} The State charged Defendant by criminal information with possession of heroin pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 30-31-23 (2011, amended 2021). At Defendant's preliminary hearing, the deputy explained what led to Defendant's arrest. He testified that he recognized Defendant from past encounters and was aware that Defendant frequented a house that often required the attention of the police. About a week prior to spotting Defendant on the street, the deputy searched the judiciary's public facing database for warrants on people known to frequent the house, including Defendant. Through that search, the deputy discovered that Defendant had a warrant. The deputy testified that Defendant was immediately handcuffed because he had run away from the deputy in the past. At the time the deputy handcuffed Defendant, the deputy did not know whether the warrant was still valid, and he noted that Defendant had not been doing anything illegal.

{5} As part of his defense at the preliminary hearing, Defendant argued that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion to stop him because the deputy handcuffed Defendant before learning that Defendant had an active warrant through the NCIC database. The district court agreed, concluded that "the search was illegal," and declined to bind the case over for trial. The portion of the preliminary hearing devoted to argument on this issue was approximately two-and-one-half minutes. Neither party provided authority to establish whether a district court judge presiding over a preliminary hearing has authority to determine whether "the search was illegal," in effect to decide whether evidence was obtained from an unconstitutional search or seizure. In fact, no authority was cited by either party with reference to the deputy's stop of Defendant, and the district court cited no authority in explaining its decision.

{6} The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed. State v. Ayon , 2022-NMCA-003, ¶ 1, 503 P.3d 405. The Court of Appeals concluded that the district court is without authority to determine at a preliminary hearing whether evidence was obtained illegally. Id. ¶¶ 1, 17. The Court of Appeals was persuaded that the reasoning in Martinez in the context of grand juries is applicable to preliminary hearings, given that both are aimed at a probable cause determination. Id. ¶ 11. It further concluded that no statute or court rule authorizes a district court to rule on the legality of the evidence presented at a preliminary hearing and noted several practical considerations that militate against Defendant's position. Id. ¶¶ 11-13, 15-16.

{7} We granted Defendant's petition for certiorari to determine whether the district court has the authority at a preliminary hearing to decide whether evidence was obtained from an unconstitutional search or seizure.²

II. DISCUSSION

{8} Defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the district court has no authority to exclude illegally obtained evidence at a preliminary hearing for three reasons: (1) Martinez does not control the result in this case because there are substantial differences between grand jury proceedings and preliminary hearings; (2) the characteristics of preliminary hearings are such that, on balance, the district court should be allowed to exclude illegally obtained evidence at this stage in the proceeding; and (3) Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution provides the right to exclude illegal evidence at preliminary hearings.

{9} We review interpretations of our rules of criminal procedure and questions of constitutional interpretation de novo. State v. Adame , 2020-NMSC-015, ¶ 7, 476 P.3d 872 ; Allen v. LeMaster , 2012-NMSC-001, ¶ 11, 267 P.3d 806.

A. The Relationship and Similarities Between Grand Jury Proceedings and Preliminary Hearings Favor Congruent Rules as to the Power to Decide if Evidence Was Obtained From an Unconstitutional Search or Seizure

{10} In Martinez , two defendants filed a motion in district court challenging their grand jury indictment on the ground that unlawful subpoenas were used to obtain information presented to the grand jury. 2018-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 2, 5-6, 420 P.3d 568. This Court concluded that an otherwise lawful grand jury indictment cannot be overturned "because of trial inadmissibility or improprieties in the procurement of evidence" presented to the grand jury. Id. ¶ 1. Accordingly, stated the Martinez Court, "suppression is a remedy for court determination in pretrial proceedings and is not one the grand jury is either equipped or called upon to decide." Id. ¶ 31.

{11} The State argues that preliminary hearings "share a common purpose and an identical function" with grand jury proceedings and that Martinez therefore controls the result in this case. Defendant, arguing to the contrary, points out that the Martinez analysis is deeply rooted in the specific history and development of New Mexico grand jury practice and concludes that this analysis is inapplicable to preliminary hearings. See Martinez , 2018-NMSC-031, ¶¶ 15-25, 420 P.3d 568 (reviewing statutory and precedential history specific to grand juries). Defendant further argues that Martinez is inapplicable because preliminary hearings and grand juries "are different proceedings with entirely different structures."

{12} The structure of a preliminary hearing is indeed very different from that of a grand jury proceeding. At a preliminary hearing, for example, the judge substantially controls the procedure, playing a much more prominent role than the judge at a grand jury proceeding. See generally Rule 5-302 (detailing time requirements and procedures administered by the district court judge). At a grand jury proceeding, the prosecutor is largely in control. See Herrera v. Sanchez , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 15, 328 P.3d 1176 ("The grand jury sits without direct supervision from the grand jury judge and fulfills its constitutional responsibilities with help from a prosecuting attorney."). At a preliminary hearing, the judge decides whether the state has demonstrated probable cause. Rule 5-302(D). But at a grand jury proceeding, a panel of "regular jurors" decides. NMSA 1978, § 31-6-1 (1983) (stating that at a grand jury proceeding all deliberations are conducted by jurors). Moreover, the rules of evidence do not apply at a grand jury proceeding, NMSA 1978, § 31-6-11(A) (2003), but are applicable at a preliminary hearing subject to limited exceptions, Rule 5-302(B)(5) ; see Rule 5-302.1 (Exceptions to rules of evidence for preliminary examinations).

{13} The rights of the target of a grand jury proceeding are more limited than the rights of a defendant at a preliminary hearing. Cf. Herrera , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 16, 328 P.3d 1176. The grand jury target and counsel for the target can be present only if the target testifies, and only during that testimony. Id. ; see also § 31-6-4(B)-(D) (2003). Moreover, the target's counsel may not speak to the grand jury. Herrera , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 16, 328 P.3d 1176 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 31-6-4(D). But at a preliminary hearing, "the defendant is permitted to be present with counsel throughout the duration of the proceedings, to cross-examine the State's witnesses, and to call and subpoena witnesses on the defendant's own behalf." Herrera , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 16, 328 P.3d 1176 (citing generally Rule 5-302 ).

{14} "Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret," Herrera , 2014-NMSC-018, ¶ 16, 328 P.3d 1176 (citing § 31-6-4(B)-(D) ), and are...