Allen v. LeMaster
1 N.M. Ct. App. 85
N.M.2011Background
- Allen was convicted and sentenced to death for kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder of a 17-year-old in 1994; direct appeal affirmed.
- On March 20, 2002, Allen filed a habeas corpus petition with 13 claims, including ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) claims.
- The district court granted an evidentiary hearing on the IAC claims and dismissed the other 11 claims without a hearing.
- Discovery included deposing trial attorneys, obtaining various files, deposing twenty history witnesses, a psychologist, and a court-ordered psychiatric evaluation; Allen was deposed twice.
- Allen invoked privilege at deposition; the district court compelled some testimony about attorney communications and ultimately dismissed the petition with prejudice as a sanction for noncompliance.
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that deposition of a criminal defendant is improper under Rule 5-503, and communications relevant to IAC claims are excepted from attorney-client privilege under Rule 11-503(D)(3); the petition was not properly dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 5-503 prohibits dep[osition] of a defendant in habeas proceedings | Allen argues Rule 5-503 bars compelled statements from a defendant. | State contends habeas allows broader discovery and Rule 5-503 does not apply. | Rule 5-503 precludes deposing a criminal defendant. |
| Whether communications relevant to IAC claims fall under the attorney-client privilege exception | IAC communications are privileged unless excluded by rule 11-503(D)(3). | Privilege applies unless waiver or exception is recognized. | Communications relevant to IAC claims are excepted from privilege under Rule 11-503(D)(3). |
| Whether raising IAC claims waives attorney-client privilege | Waiver applies to IAC-related communications. | No automatic waiver; privilege could apply unless an exception governs. | Waiver is not required; the breach-of-duty exception applies, removing privilege for relevant communications. |
| Whether the district court erred by dismissing the habeas petition as a sanction | Dismissal with prejudice was improper given Rule 5-503 restrictions. | Sanction appropriate for failure to answer deposition questions. | Dismissal reversed; the petition must be decided on its merits. |
| Whether non-privileged discovery of IAC-related material is permitted | Non-privileged discovery should be allowed under Rule 5-503(C). | Discovery limited by privilege and rule constraints. | Non-privileged discovery permitted; focus remains on non-privileged communications and other witnesses. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lohberger, 144 N.M. 297 (2008-NMSC-033) (de novo review of privilege law in NM criminal procedures)
- Caristo v. Sullivan, 818 P.2d 401 (1991) (postconviction habeas as part of criminal proceedings; framework for privilege)
- Pub. Serv. Co. v. Lyons, 129 N.M. 487 (2000-NMCA-077) (codified scope of attorney-client privilege; exceptions)
- United States v. Pinson, 584 F.3d 972 (10th Cir. 2009) (habeas waives privilege for IAC communications)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (standard for evaluating ineffective assistance of counsel)
- State v. Reyes, 132 N.M. 576 (2002-NMSC-024) (IAC claims and privilege considerations in NM)
- State v. Hunter, 2006-NMSC-043 (2006-NMSC-043) (habeas as preferred avenue for IAC claims in NM)