NM: Legality of search and seizure not an issue for preliminary hearing

It is not the district court’s statutory function to consider the legality of seizure of evidence at a preliminary hearing. State v. Ayon, 2021 N.M. App. LEXIS 44 (July 27, 2021):

P15 Moreover, construing a district court’s authority at the preliminary hearing to include consideration of whether evidence was illegally obtained would encourage mini-trials on evidentiary issues, which, again, is inconsistent with efficient judicial administration and economy. See State v. Lopez, 2013-NMSC-047, ¶ 20, 314 P.3d 236 (noting that “[t]he preliminary hearing is not intended to be a mini-trial”). Two determinations of admissibility could occur, one at the preliminary hearing and another before trial, which would increase the number of pretrial motions and strain judicial resources, counter to the applicable rules’ stated intent. See Rule 5-101(B) NMRA (mandating that the Rules of Criminal Procedure for the district court “be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay”).

P16 We further note that preliminary hearings are held on an accelerated timeline, particularly if the defendant is in custody. Rule 5-302(A)(1) (explaining timing requirements for scheduling a preliminary hearing). If district courts are to evaluate whether evidence was illegally obtained at these hearings, “there often will not be adequate time for the two sides to investigate and prepare for exclusionary rule objections.” 4 LaFave, supra, § 14.4(b). Inadequate time to develop arguments about illegally obtained evidence could result in district courts having to make insufficiently informed rulings based on undeveloped arguments.

P17 We conclude the Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide authority for a district court to determine whether evidence was illegally obtained at a preliminary hearing. The dismissal of the criminal information based on such a determination was in error.

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.