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

• On June 28, 2018, around 9:00 p.m., in Hobbs, New Mexico, Defendant Kentoine Penman and his companion were standing in the middle of the road, leading to their approach by three Hobbs Police Department officers. During the investigation of a potential pedestrians on roadways statute violation, an altercation occurred involving Penman, resulting in his arrest and subsequent charges, including battery upon a peace officer, assault upon a peace officer, resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer, possession of controlled substances, and pedestrians on roadways (paras 4-7).

Procedural History

• District Court: Denied Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained after the stop and to dismiss some charges (para 1).
• Court of Appeals, State v. Penman, 2022-NMCA-065: Affirmed the district court's decision in part but reversed on the pedestrians on roadways charge, finding the initial stop unconstitutional. However, it allowed evidence of remaining crimes under the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the Court of Appeals erred in three aspects: (1) determining the lawful discharge of duties as a factual question, (2) setting an overbroad test for lawful discharge of duties, and (3) incorrectly applying the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Supported the Court of Appeals' decision, maintaining that the officers acted within the lawful discharge of their duties and that the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule was correctly applied.

Legal Issues

• Whether the determination of an officer acting within the lawful discharge of their duties is always a question of fact.
• Whether the Court of Appeals set forth an overbroad test for whether an officer acts within the lawful discharge of their duties.
• Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule (paras 2-3).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals on the issue that whether an officer acted within the lawful discharge of their duties can be decided pretrial as a matter of law when facts are undisputed.
• Affirmed the Court of Appeals' application of the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule and its decision not to dismiss Defendant’s charges for assault upon a peace officer, battery upon a peace officer, and resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer (paras 3, 36).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court held that the determination of an officer's lawful discharge of duties can be a matter of law if facts are undisputed (para 14). It rejected the Defendant's proposed narrow interpretation of lawful discharge of duties, reaffirming the standard that an officer is lawfully discharging their duties when acting within the scope of their employment, except when on a personal frolic, acting in bad faith, or using unreasonable force (paras 17-21). The Court found no basis for pretrial dismissal of the charges against Defendant under the correct interpretation of lawful discharge of duties (para 25). It agreed with the Court of Appeals that the new crime exception to the exclusionary rule applied, allowing evidence of Defendant's crimes post the illegal stop to be admitted (paras 27-35).