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 November 2008, an art-house movie theater in Albuquerque hosted "Pornotopia," an erotic film festival, which was well-received by the local business community and did not result in any negative effects on the neighborhood. Despite the festival's success and the theater's usual non-pornographic programming, the theater was convicted of a zoning violation for operating as an "Adult Amusement Establishment" in an area not zoned for such use (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan court: Found the Guild guilty of a zoning violation and imposed a criminal fine (para 7).
• Second Judicial District Court: Affirmed the metropolitan court's decision, holding that the Guild committed a zoning violation and that the zoning ordinances were constitutional as applied to the Guild (para 7).
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed the Guild’s conviction (para 7).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendants-Petitioners (The Guild Cinema): Argued that the conviction violated their state and federal constitutional rights to free speech, contending that the theater does not fall under the definition of an "adult amusement establishment" due to its rare and occasional showing of adult films (para 2).
• Plaintiffs-Respondents (State of New Mexico, City of Albuquerque): Maintained that the Guild's screening of films during the Pornotopia festival constituted a zoning violation under the city's definition of an "adult amusement establishment" (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the theater's conviction for operating as an "Adult Amusement Establishment" in an improper zone violated its constitutional rights to free speech.
• Whether the theater qualifies as an "adult amusement establishment" under the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances due to its occasional showing of adult films.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and vacated the Guild’s conviction, holding that the theater is not an adult amusement establishment as defined in the Albuquerque Code of Ordinances, and therefore, the zoning rules governing adult amusement establishments are inapplicable to it (para 26).

Reasons

• EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice (with RICHARD C. BOSSON, CHARLES W. DANIELS, BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justices concurring): The Court found that the definition of "adult amusement establishment" should not apply to theaters that only occasionally feature adult entertainment. It emphasized that the Guild, by showing adult films only rarely, does not fit the intended target of the zoning ordinance, which aims to regulate businesses of a clearly adult nature to avoid negative secondary effects associated with such establishments. The Court also sought to avoid an interpretation of the statute that would raise constitutional concerns, noting that enough courts have found similar applications unconstitutional, warranting a construction of the ordinance that avoids these doubts (paras 3, 13-25).
  PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice (dissenting): Chief Justice Maes dissented, adopting the majority opinion of the Court of Appeals as her dissent. She expressed concern that the majority's interpretation allows for too much discretion by theaters and other establishments in presenting adult amusement, potentially eroding the zoning power of municipalities and creating ambiguity in the application of clear-cut zoning ordinances (paras 28-29).