State v. Crocco
2013 NMCA 033
N.M. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Gregg Crocco was convicted of aggravated driving while intoxicated after a warrantless entry into a private residence.
- Officers entered 1690 14th Avenue without a warrant to check occupants’ safety following a 911 report of a stranger entering a home.
- Defendant was initially found sleeping or incapacitated inside the residence after the entry and later subjected to field sobriety testing and breath alcohol testing resulting in BACs of .26 and .27.
- Trial counsel did not move to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless entry; Defendant later obtained new counsel and sought a new trial on the ineffective assistance ground.
- The district court denied suppression-oriented relief, but the appellate court reversed, finding a prima facie case of ineffective assistance and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was trial counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress evidence? | Crocco argues suppression was warranted; failure to move to suppress prejudiced the defense. | Crocco contends the entry violated Fourth Amendment and NM Constitution, making evidence suppressible. | Yes; counsel's failure to move to suppress was deficient and prejudicial. |
| Was the warrantless entry justified by emergency assistance under the Ryon framework? | State contends emergency assistance justified entry. | There was no credible emergency or imminent danger to occupants. | Entry not justified under emergency assistance doctrine. |
| Would suppression of evidence alter the trial’s outcome? | Suppression would exclude key DWI evidence. | Suppression would not change outcome? (not adopted). | There is a reasonable probability the outcome would differ if suppressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Gutierrez, 143 N.M. 422 (2008 NMCA) (emergency assistance doctrine and warrantless home entry limitations)
- State v. Ryon, 137 P.3d 1032 (2005-NMSC-005) (three-factor emergency-entry framework for home entries)
- State v. Martinez, 122 N.M. 476 (1996-NMCA-109) (reasonableness and standing in suppression motions)
- State v. Lujan, 143 N.M. 233 (2008-NMCA-003-21) (suppression of evidence from improper entry (NM appellate standard))
- Patterson v. LeMaster, 21 P.3d 1032 (2001-NMSC-013) (two-part Strickland standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- United States v. Rajar, 451 F.3d 710 (10th Cir. 2006) (two-factor federal test for emergency entry reasonable basis and search reasonableness)
- United States v. Brigham City, 547 U.S. 398 (2006) (rejected subjective motivation approach to emergency entries; focus on objective basis and reasonableness)