State v. Penman
Background
- Defendant Kentoine Penman was stopped by Hobbs Police while standing in the roadway; the stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion and thus held unconstitutional.
- After approaching the scene and recording police activity, Penman was arrested following a physical altercation with an officer.
- Penman was charged with multiple crimes, including battery on a peace officer, assault on a peace officer, resisting/evading/obstructing an officer, possession of controlled substances, and violating the pedestrian on roadways statute.
- The district court denied Penman's motion to suppress evidence and dismiss charges linked to the officer's allegedly unlawful activity; Penman entered a conditional plea of no contest.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed the pedestrian charge, found the stop illegal, but held the remaining charges valid, applying the "new crime exception" to the exclusionary rule.
- On certiorari, Penman challenged the legal standards applied to determine "lawful discharge of duties" and the new crime exception.
Issues
| Issue | Penman's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "lawful discharge of duties" is always factual | Can be decided as matter of law where facts undisputed | Is always a question of fact for the jury | Not always factual; can be legal question pretrial if facts undisputed |
| Proper test for "lawful discharge of duties" | Requires constitutionally/statutorily lawful conduct | Doe test: scope of official duties, not on frolic/bad faith | Doe test reaffirmed: scope of duties, not necessarily constitutionally lawful unless on frolic/bad faith |
| Should charges be dismissed based on initial unlawful stop | Yes, because officer not lawfully discharging duties if stop illegal | No, as officer was within employment scope investigating crime | No dismissal; officer acted within scope, no proof of bad faith/frolic |
| Application of new crime exception to exclusionary rule | Exception inapplicable; evidence should be suppressed | Exception should apply due to attenuation of taint | Exception applies; evidence of new crimes admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Doe, 583 P.2d 464 (N.M. 1978) (defining "lawful discharge of duties" as acting within scope of official employment, even if arrest is unlawful)
- State v. Foulenfont, 895 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (district court may decide legal issues pretrial on undisputed facts)
- State v. Tapia, 414 P.3d 332 (N.M. 2018) (outlining the "new crime exception" attenuation test under exclusionary rule)
- Utah v. Strieff, 579 U.S. 232 (2016) (articulating federal attenuation doctrine for exclusionary rule)