State v. Chadwick-McNally, 414 P.3d 326

Defendant Shanah Chadwick-McNally was charged with first-degree murder (a capital felony) and other offenses; the State alleged two statutory aggravating circumstances and seeks life without possibility of release or parole (LWOP).
New Mexico abolished the death penalty for crimes committed on or after July 1, 2009, replacing it with a mandatory LWOP sentencing scheme for capital felonies when one or more aggravating circumstances are found.
The 2009 amendments repealed many procedural protections that applied in death-penalty cases (including bifurcated trials and consideration of mitigating evidence); Rule 5-704 (Death penalty; sentencing) was later amended and continues to govern death-penalty proceedings.
The district court held that Rule 5-704 and Ogden hearings do not apply to LWOP cases and precluded the defendant from presenting mitigating evidence; the defendant sought interlocutory review, which this Court granted.
The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed: Rule 5-704 and Ogden do not apply to LWOP cases; the Act permits mandatory LWOP when an aggravator is found and precludes admission of mitigating evidence for sentencing; bifurcation remains discretionary under criminal procedure rules.

Issue	State's Argument	Chadwick-McNally's Argument	Held
1. Does Rule 5-704 apply to LWOP cases?	Rule 5-704 applies only to death-penalty cases; not to LWOP.	Rule 5-704 (or similar death-penalty protections) must apply because LWOP is comparably severe.	Rule 5-704 applies only to death-penalty cases; it does not extend to LWOP.
2. Is an Ogden probable-cause hearing required to test aggravators in LWOP cases?	Ogden procedure is limited to death-penalty prosecutions and is not required for LWOP.	At minimum, Ogden hearing required to dismiss unsupported aggravating circumstances pretrial.	Ogden hearings are not required when the State seeks LWOP rather than death.
3. Are bifurcated guilt/sentencing proceedings required or prohibited?	The Act is silent; death-era bifurcation was repealed; no requirement.	Defendant may reserve aggravators until after guilt phase; bifurcation should be permitted.	Statute does not require or prohibit bifurcation; trial courts may address bifurcation case-by-case under criminal procedure rules.
4. May the defendant present mitigating evidence at sentencing?	The 2009 Act makes LWOP mandatory if an aggravator is found, precluding mitigation; Eighth Amendment does not require individualized sentencing for adults.	Excluding mitigating evidence violates federal and state constitutional protections.	The Act precludes consideration of mitigating evidence for sentencing when an aggravator is found; this does not violate the federal Constitution for adult defendants.

State v. Martinez, 132 N.M. 32, 43 P.3d 1042 (N.M. 2002) (death penalty requires heightened procedural scrutiny)
State v. Ogden, 118 N.M. 234, 880 P.2d 845 (N.M. 1994) (authorized limited probable-cause hearing to test aggravating circumstances in death-penalty cases)
Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (U.S. 1991) (mandatory LWOP for adults without individualized consideration is not per se Eighth Amendment violation)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (U.S. 2012) (mandatory LWOP for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (U.S. 2005) (death penalty for juveniles violates Eighth Amendment)
State v. Cabezuela, 350 P.3d 1145 (N.M. 2015) (mandatory life sentences for capital felonies are not subject to mitigation)