This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A twelve-year-old child shot her father, claiming the shooting was accidental. Law enforcement suspected it was intentional and treated the case as a murder investigation. The child was fingerprinted pursuant to a search warrant issued on the day of the shooting, and the State sought to introduce the fingerprints and statements made by the child to friends and family as evidence in a delinquency proceeding (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- Children's Court: Suppressed the child's statements and fingerprints, interpreting the Children's Code to prohibit their admissibility (paras 1, 5-6).
- Court of Appeals (2005-NMCA-019): Affirmed the suppression of the child's statements but remanded the issue of fingerprint admissibility for further factual and legal analysis (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- State: Argued that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal, the child's statements were admissible as they were made in social settings, and the fingerprints were validly obtained under a search warrant. The State also contended that the Court of Appeals erred in remanding the fingerprint issue and raising statutory interpretation questions sua sponte (paras 8, 10, 18, 23).
- Child: Asserted that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal, the statements were inadmissible under the Children's Code, and the fingerprints were improperly obtained without a valid court order as required by the statute (paras 9, 13, 24).
Legal Issues
- Did the Court of Appeals have jurisdiction to hear the State's interlocutory appeal?
- Are statements made by a child under the age of thirteen in a noncustodial setting admissible in delinquency proceedings?
- Are fingerprints taken from a child under the age of thirteen pursuant to a search warrant admissible in delinquency proceedings?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal (para 13).
- The suppression of the child's statements was affirmed (para 20).
- The suppression of the child's fingerprints was reversed, and the case was remanded to the Children's Court for trial (para 30).
Reasons
Per Petra Jimenez Maes J. (Chávez CJ., Minzner, Serna, and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction: The Court of Appeals had jurisdiction under Section 39-3-3(B)(2), which allows interlocutory appeals of suppression orders in delinquency proceedings. Juvenile delinquency cases are sufficiently similar to criminal cases to warrant this application (paras 11-13).
Suppression of Statements: Section 32A-2-14(F) of the Children's Code unequivocally prohibits the admission of any statements made by children under thirteen, regardless of the context or to whom the statements were made. The statute's plain language and legislative intent provide complete protection for children under thirteen, and no exceptions can be created by the courts (paras 15-20).
Suppression of Fingerprints: The protections of Section 32A-2-14(I) apply only after a formal petition alleging delinquency has been filed. Since the child's fingerprints were taken before such a petition was filed, the statutory protections did not apply. The Court declined to address whether a search warrant constitutes a "court order" under the statute, as it was unnecessary to resolve the case (paras 26-29).
Remand by Court of Appeals: The Court of Appeals erred in remanding the fingerprint issue to the Children's Court for statutory interpretation. Appellate courts are better suited to resolve questions of statutory construction, and no additional factual findings were required (paras 24-25).