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 Defendant was indicted on charges including first-degree murder, tampering with evidence, and receiving stolen property. A motion to suppress evidence, including statements made before Miranda warnings were given, physical evidence of a gun, and the custodial interrogation of the Defendant, was filed and granted by the district court.

Procedural History

• District Court of Taos County, December 6, 2012: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress evidence.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that motions to reconsider should be encouraged to further judicial economy and claimed that the Defendant waived his objection to the timeliness of the State’s appeal by not objecting to the timing of the State’s motion for reconsideration in the district court.
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the State's appeal was neither timely nor authorized by Section 39-3-3, arguing that the appeal was untimely and that the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of the State’s untimely appeal.

Legal Issues

• Whether the State preserved its right to appeal a suppression order by filing a motion to reconsider outside the ten-day period prescribed by statute.
• Whether the State's appeal was timely filed.
• Whether the Defendant waived his right to challenge the timeliness of the State’s appeal by not objecting to the timing of the State’s motion for reconsideration.

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed as untimely filed.

Reasons

• Justice Edward L. Chávez, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Richard C. Bosson, Justice Charles W. Daniels, and Justice Barbara J. Vigil, held that while the State may ask the district court to reconsider a suppression order and simultaneously preserve its right to appeal, the motion to reconsider must be filed within the ten-day period following the suppression order. In this case, the State filed its motion to reconsider after the ten-day period had expired, failing to preserve its right to appeal. The court also noted that the State's failure to file a timely notice of appeal could not be excused by Defendant's lack of objection to the timing of the State's motion to reconsider in the district court. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures for filing appeals and rejected the State's argument that the appeal period should be tolled by a motion to reconsider filed outside the ten-day window. Consequently, the court dismissed the State's appeal as untimely and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its decision (paras 1-22).