410 P.3d 201
N.M.2018Background
- New Mexico amended Article II, §13 (Nov. 2016) to permit denial of pretrial release for felonies when the prosecutor proves by clear and convincing evidence that no conditions will reasonably protect others or the community.
- Petition brought by the Second Judicial District Attorney challenged a district judge’s denials of prosecutorial detention motions in State v. Salas and State v. Harper and sought guidance on what evidence is required at detention hearings.
- Salas: charged with 47 armed robberies; prosecutor submitted a sworn criminal complaint (including confession and surveillance references) but called no live witnesses; judge denied detention and set $100,000 cash bond.
- Harper: charged with attempted murder and related offenses; prosecutor proffered complaint, prior convictions, restraining orders, video and text evidence, and risk assessment; judge denied detention and set $100,000 secured bond, again rejecting some documentary items as unauthenticated.
- The Supreme Court granted superintending control to resolve whether detention hearings require live testimony and to reconcile the new constitutional amendment with due process and court rules (Rule 5-409 effective July 1, 2017).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether detention hearings require live witness testimony | State: live witnesses not always required; proffers and documents suffice subject to court discretion | Judge/Defense: due process and confrontation may require live testimony and cross-examination | Court: No categorical live-witness requirement; courts may rely on proffers/documents but may require live testimony when reliability/authenticity is in doubt |
| 2. Whether formal rules of evidence apply at detention hearings | State: formal rules need not apply; admissibility relaxed | Judge/Defense: hearsay and uncorroborated proffers are unreliable without testimonial proof | Court: Rules of evidence do not strictly apply; focus on reliability and probative value of information presented |
| 3. Standards for assessing nontestimonial evidence (proffers, records) | State: court may consider all reasonably reliable information worthy of reasoned consideration | Judge/Defense: such material insufficient absent ability to confront witnesses | Court: Court must evaluate indicia of reliability (consistency, corroboration, source, contestation) and determine whether evidence meets clear-and-convincing standard |
| 4. Use of money bond as substitute for detention | State: bonds appropriate when release is allowed; but detention power is separate | Judge/Defense: setting high bond is acceptable alternative to detention | Court: Setting an unaffordable money bond to effect detention is unconstitutional; if defendant is detainable for dangerousness, court must order detention rather than use money bond to detain |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (U.S. 1987) (upholding pretrial detention statute and noting procedural protections required are constitutionally adequate)
- United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C. 1981) (detention hearings need not follow formal trial evidence rules; proffers and hearsay permissible subject to judicial discretion)
- State v. Mendonza, 673 N.E.2d 22 (Mass. 1996) (upholding statutory pretrial detention on clear-and-convincing evidence and permitting hearsay/proffers with due-process safeguards)
- Abbott A. v. Commonwealth, 933 N.E.2d 936 (Mass. 2010) (upholding detention based solely on nontestimonial evidence with substantial indicia of reliability)
- State v. Robinson, 160 A.3d 1 (N.J. 2017) (New Jersey: no requirement to call live witnesses at every detention hearing; trial court retains discretion to demand direct testimony)
- State v. Brown, 338 P.3d 1276 (N.M. 2014) (surveyed bail law and bail-reform rationale; emphasized individualized, evidence-based pretrial decisions)