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 June 2018, following a traffic stop in a residential neighborhood, Hobbs Police Department Officers observed two men, including Defendant Kentoine Penman, standing in the middle of the street. As officers approached, the men walked back toward the sidewalk. Officer Jaimes questioned Penman near where he was standing in the road. During the interaction, an onlooker, Shamus Wright, objected to the investigation, leading to his arrest. Penman, who began filming the arrest, was ordered to step back by Officer Jaimes, eventually complied, but then continued filming. Officer Martinez attempted to arrest Penman, who pushed Martinez away and fled, leading to his physical arrest. Substances found on Penman and in the patrol vehicle tested positive for cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine. Penman admitted the cocaine and marijuana were his but denied possession of the methamphetamine (paras 2-9).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County: Denied Defendant's pretrial motions to dismiss charges and to suppress evidence and testimony obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Article II, Section 10 of the New Mexico Constitution (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the charges for pedestrians on roadways, battery upon a peace officer, assault upon a peace officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer should be dismissed under State v. Foulenfont. Also argued that all evidence and statements obtained from the stop should be suppressed due to lack of reasonable suspicion and violation of constitutional rights (paras 10-11).
• State: Responded that dismissal under Foulenfont would be inappropriate as the evaluation of the stop involved questions of fact. Argued that the investigatory stop was supported by reasonable suspicion, and if not, evidence of Defendant’s drug offenses, battery, assault, and resisting charges were admissible under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule (para 10).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the charges under Foulenfont.
• Whether the district court improperly denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence under Ochoa, arguing the initial stop was pretextual and violated constitutional rights (paras 14, 35).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss as to the pedestrians on roadways charge but affirmed the denial of the battery, assault, and resisting charges. The Court also affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s Ochoa Motion, holding that evidence of the charges was admissible under the new crime exception (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court found that the plain language of Section 66-7-339(A) did not support the charge for pedestrians on roadways as it requires a pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway, and merely standing in the middle of a residential street was insufficient to establish a violation. Therefore, the district court erred in denying Defendant's motion to dismiss this charge. However, the Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's motion as to the remaining charges, concluding that whether officers were acting in the lawful discharge of their duties when the crimes were committed is a question of fact for the jury. Regarding the Ochoa Motion, the Court concluded that even though the initial stop lacked reasonable suspicion, the subsequent new criminal activity by Defendant was sufficiently distinct to make the evidence of the other charges admissible under the new crime exception (paras 14-48).