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, serving a probation term in Colorado under an Interstate Compact Transfer from New Mexico, was reported as an absconder by Colorado probation officers. The report indicated that the Defendant failed to report to probation officers and his whereabouts were unknown since August 13, 2024 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of San Juan County: The court revoked the Defendant's probation based on a violation report from Colorado probation officers (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that his due process and confrontation rights were violated because he was not allowed to confront witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the alleged probation violations, such as his probation officer in Colorado (paras 2, 4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Asserted that the violation report was reliable and that there was no motive for the State’s witnesses to fabricate its content. The State argued that the report was a routine recording providing an objective conclusion regarding the Defendant's failure to report (paras 3, 9).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's due process rights were violated by not allowing him to confront and cross-examine witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the probation violation report (para 4).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to revoke the Defendant's probation (para 12).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Medina C.J. and Hanisee J. concurring):
The Court found that the Defendant's due process rights were not violated. The Court applied the Godinez factors to determine whether there was good cause to not require confrontation. The violation report was deemed reliable, and the Defendant's failure to report was considered an objective fact that did not necessitate live testimony. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in admitting the violation report without requiring testimony from the Colorado probation officer, as the need for confrontation was outweighed by the reliability of the evidence presented (paras 5-11).