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, owner and president of DGM Construction, issued payroll checks to workers for a construction project on the Zuni Pueblo in 2002. These checks were returned for insufficient funds after being cashed by the workers at a local trading post. The Defendant was subsequently charged with issuing worthless checks under the Worthless Check Act (para 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Cruz, 2010-NMCA-011: The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's convictions, holding that the Worthless Check Act applies only to contemporaneous exchanges and not to pre-existing debts (para 3-4).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Worthless Check Act's prohibition against issuing worthless checks "in exchange for anything of value" applies to checks issued for labor, including those paid within the traditional two weeks required for processing payroll (para 5).
• Defendant-Respondent (Debbie Cruz): Contended there was insufficient evidence to prove that she had issued a check "in exchange for anything of value" as required by the Act, arguing that the checks were issued for a pre-existing debt and thus not covered by the Act (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Worthless Check Act’s prohibition against issuing worthless checks “in exchange for anything of value” applies to checks issued for labor, often “paid within the traditional two weeks required for processing payroll” (para 5).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded for consideration of the remaining issues raised but not decided on appeal (para 40).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Richard C. Bosson, held that the distinction between contemporaneous exchanges and pre-existing debts, as applied by the Court of Appeals, was inconsistent with the clear legislative intent and purpose of the Worthless Check Act. The Court found that the Act's language, specifically the inclusion of "services" within the definition of "thing of value," indicated a legislative intent to cover situations where workers are paid by check for their services, regardless of the timing of the payment relative to the services rendered. The Court rejected the requirement of a contemporaneous transaction as set forth in Platt and held that the language of the Act requiring "an exchange for anything of value" is to be read broadly. The Court concluded that the Act applies to worthless payroll checks, with or without a lapse of time between payment and work performed, as this furthers the purposes of the Act (paras 6-39).