This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of criminal trespass and harassment after a bench trial in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court. The victim testified that she had known the Defendant for just over a week and stated that they were not in a romantic relationship, though they had kissed. The case was initially assigned a domestic violence docket number, but the Metropolitan Court judgment did not indicate that the crimes involved domestic violence (paras 2, 14).
Procedural History
- Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of criminal trespass and harassment. The judgment did not indicate that the crimes involved domestic violence (paras 2-3).
- District Court: Denied the Defendant's request for a trial de novo, concluding that the victim and Defendant were in a continuing personal relationship, making the case one of domestic violence. The court affirmed the convictions on an on-record review (para 3).
- Court of Appeals, 2005-NMCA-130: Reversed the District Court, holding that the Metropolitan Court judgment did not establish the case as involving domestic violence. The Defendant was entitled to a trial de novo (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- State: Argued that the District Court correctly determined the case involved domestic violence based on the victim's testimony and that the Defendant was not entitled to a trial de novo (para 4).
- Defendant: Contended that the Metropolitan Court judgment did not establish the case as involving domestic violence and that he was entitled to a trial de novo (para 4).
Legal Issues
- Whether the District Court correctly determined that the case involved domestic violence under the Family Violence Protection Act (FVPA).
- Whether the Defendant was entitled to a trial de novo in the District Court (para 5).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico held that the Defendant was not convicted of domestic abuse under the FVPA and was entitled to a trial de novo in the District Court (para 16).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Bosson C.J., Serna, Maes, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
The Court determined that the Metropolitan Court judgment and sentence implicitly or explicitly reflect whether a case involves domestic violence. If the judgment does not indicate domestic violence, it implies that the case does not fall under the FVPA. This determination is subject to review by the District Court (paras 5, 9-10).
The Court reviewed the facts de novo and concluded that the victim and Defendant did not have a "continuing personal relationship" as required to establish a "household member" under the FVPA. The relationship was brief, and the victim's testimony did not support the characterization of a long-term or enduring connection (paras 13-14).
The Court emphasized that the FVPA is intended to address violence in genuinely long-term relationships, which require special protections. Since the victim was not a household member, the Defendant's convictions did not involve domestic violence, and he was entitled to a trial de novo (paras 15-16).