Concha v. Sanchez, 150 N.M. 268

Thirty-two Taos courtroom spectators were summarily jailed for direct criminal contempt after a disrupted sentencing hearing in which the defendant, who pled guilty to sexual offenses against a minor, sought a sentence reduction.
The district judge ordered all spectators to jail without individualized findings, warnings, or hearings, based on a belief that a threat to courtroom safety existed and that control was necessary.
No separate hearings or determinations followed; the orders were facially identical and did not provide bonds, future settings, or individualized guilt assessments.
Petitioners secured counsel and sought relief via an emergency writ; the New Mexico Supreme Court stayed custody and directed further proceedings.
The Court ultimately vacated the contempt convictions and expunged arrest records, holding the judge’s actions violated due process and exceeded permissible contempt powers.
The opinion discusses the sources, classification, and limits of contempt power, and why extraordinary relief was necessary to address ongoing due process violations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the orders were civil or criminal contempt	Concha argued contempt was criminal and improperly punitive.	Sanchez argued the actions were necessary for courtroom control to prevent harm.	No, the actions constituted improper direct criminal contempt without due process.
Whether the judge had personal knowledge of guilt	The judge did not witness any guilty conduct of any petitioner.	The judge acted to restore order based on observed disruption.	Summary direct contempt requiring personal knowledge was improper; no individualized guilt found.
Whether due process protections were satisfied	Petitioners were jailed without notice, counsel, or a hearing.	Immediate action was necessary for safety and control.	Due process was not satisfied; indirect contempt procedures and notice/hearing protections were required.
Whether the extraordinary relief was appropriate	The extraordinary writ was necessary to stop ongoing abuse of judicial power.	Ordinary appellate remedies were available.	Original writ jurisdiction was appropriate to remedy jurisdictional and due process abuses.
Whether the punishment violated due process limits on contempt power	The mass jailing bypassed the least restrictive means to regain control.	Containment of disturbances justified broader measures.	The judge’s use of mass jailing violated due process and the rule of law; least power necessary required.

In re Klecan, 93 N.M. 637 (1979) (recognizing limits of summary contempt and need for safeguards)
Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheat. 204 (1821) (recognizes inherent power of courts to punish contempt)
State ex rel. Bliss v. Greenwood, 63 N.M. 156 (1957) (contempt power may not be substantially impaired by statutes)
Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp. v. Local 177, United Stone & Allied Prods. Workers, 74 N.M. 195 (1964) (contumacy power to be used cautiously and within limits)
State v. Driscoll, 89 N.M. 541 (1976) (double jeopardy concerns in continued contempt proceedings)
Pothier, 104 N.M. 363 (1986) (contempt sentences should be the least power necessary to achieve goal)
Bagwell v. Diamond, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) (criminal contempt is a crime needing due process protections)