State v. Segura, 321 P.3d 140

Background

Defendant charged with aggravated battery of a household member and criminal damage to property; released on $15,000 bond with conditions restricting drugs, alcohol, and contact with the alleged victim/witnesses.
Seventeen months later, at a plea hearing, State alleged violations of pretrial release (harassment of the victim; alleged drug use) and moved to remand Defendant.
Defense requested a full evidentiary hearing on the alleged violations; district court denied and ordered an immediate urinalysis.
Urinalysis test was conducted; test strip disposed of, but analyzed by the court as positive for opiates; defense again requested an evidentiary hearing and cross-examination of the tester.
Defendant was remanded to the Metropolitan Detention Center on a no-bond hold and ATP treatment; appeal filed challenging the bail revocation and custody.
Court later addressed mootness and proceeded to decide the due process issue, holding a proper evidentiary hearing was required to protect procedural due process rights.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process requires notice and an evidentiary hearing before revoking pretrial release or bail.	State argues minimal liberty loss; no full hearing required.	Segura argues due process demands notice and opportunity to confront evidence.	Yes; due process requires notice and an evidentiary hearing before revoking bail.
Whether the district court's order amounted to bail revocation or a modification of pretrial release conditions.	State contends it was simply modifying conditions (treatment) without revoking bail.	Remand and ATP confinement function as bail revocation.	Remand and ATP constitute bail revocation, permitting appellate review.
Whether the appeal is moot given Defendant’s release from custody.	State asserts mootness since Defendant was released.	Issues are capable of repetition yet evading review.	Not moot; issue is capable of repetition and will evade review if not decided.
Whether Defendant had a right to confront witnesses and cross-examine the testing evidence at the revocation hearing.	State contends limited due process; no full evidentiary hearing required.	Defendant must be able to cross-examine and challenge the testing reliability.	Defendant had right to confront and challenge the evidence; due process requires this opportunity.
Whether the due process standard for pretrial release revocation requires a full evidentiary hearing in this context.	State argues informal hearing suffices.	Full evidentiary hearing required to protect conditional liberty interest.	A full evidentiary hearing is required where necessary to protect due process rights.

Key Cases Cited

State v. David, 102 N.M. 138, 692 P.2d 524 (1984-NMCA-119) (appeal from revocation of bail allowed; due process requires notice and hearing)
Tijerina v. Baker, 78 N.M. 770, 438 P.2d 514 (1968-NMSC-009) (bail process balancing liberty and public safety; due process limitations)
Rule 5-403 NMRA, - (-) (incorporates notice and hearing requirements prior to revocation of bail)
Guthrie v. New Mexico, 150 N.M. 84, 257 P.3d 904 (2011-NMSC-014) (parole revocation due process standard; minimum due process requirements)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation not fully criminal prosecution, but due process applies)
State v. Rivera, 133 N.M. 571, 66 P.3d 344 (2003-NMCA-059) (conditions of release are separate from the bond; enforcement via arrest for violation)
State v. Flores, 99 N.M. 44, 653 P.2d 875 (1982-NMSC-132) (time actually incarcerated vs. community-based treatment distinctions)
State v. La Badie, 87 N.M. 391, 534 P.2d 483 (1975-NMCA-032) (inmate confinement context; distinctions from standard release conditions)
State v. Martinez, 126 N.M. 39, 966 P.2d 747 (1998-NMSC-023) (inpatient treatment vs. custodial confinement distinctions)
State v. Gutierrez, 140 N.M. 157, 140 P.3d 1106 (2006-NMCA-090) (purpose of bail; balance of liberty and public safety)