State v. Demory, 35,366

Defendant entered a conditional guilty plea to two counts of sexual exploitation of children and appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a residential search.
The search rested on an affidavit by Detective Miranda stating Defendant’s wife consented to federal agents’ entry; Miranda later acknowledged that statement came from the federal agents, not his personal observation.
At the suppression hearing Defendant’s wife testified she did not give consent; federal agents who allegedly obtained consent did not testify.
The district court discredited the wife’s testimony, found Miranda’s affidavit and testimony credible, and denied the motion to suppress.
On appeal the central legal question was whether the district court could rely on hearsay (and double hearsay) about consent at the suppression hearing.
The Court of Appeals considered New Mexico precedent allowing hearsay at suppression hearings and affirmed the district court’s ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court properly denied suppression based on consent to enter	State: district court properly credited Miranda’s affidavit/testimony showing consent	Def.: Miranda had no personal knowledge; attribution to federal agents is double hearsay and insufficient without agents testifying	Court: affirmed — district court may rely on hearsay/double hearsay at suppression hearing and properly credited testimony and affidavit
Whether Confrontation or evidentiary rules preclude hearsay at suppression hearings	State: suppression hearings allow relaxed evidence rules; hearsay permissible to determine constitutionality of search	Def.: invoked New Mexico Constitution / Wagoner to argue greater protection and that evidence from illegal search cannot support warrant	Court: declined to find state constitution provides greater protection here; defendant did not develop argument; relied on precedent allowing out-of-court statements at suppression hearings

State v. Rivera, 144 N.M. 836, 192 P.3d 1213 (N.M. 2008) (out-of-court statements admissible at suppression hearings to show authority to consent)
State v. Martinez, 141 N.M. 713, 160 P.3d 894 (N.M. 2007) (district court not bound by rules of evidence at pretrial admissibility hearings, except privileges)
State v. Urioste, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964 (N.M. 2002) (appellate courts defer to district court credibility determinations)
State v. Guerra, 278 P.3d 1031 (N.M. 2012) (appellate courts need not address undeveloped arguments)
State v. Wagoner, 130 N.M. 274, 24 P.3d 306 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (addressing consequences of illegal searches)