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 case involves a child, referred to as the Defendant, who was adjudicated delinquent after pleading no contest to allegations of fraudulent signing of a credit card sales slip, burglary of a motor vehicle, and unlawful possession of a handgun. The Defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence obtained during the investigation, which led to the charges. (paras headnotes, [RP 36-41])
Procedural History
- District Court of Chaves County: The Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was partially denied, and the Defendant was adjudicated delinquent after entering a no-contest plea. (paras headnotes, [RP 40])
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the district court erred in partially denying the motion to suppress evidence, asserting that the evidence was obtained in violation of their rights. (paras headnotes, [RP 40])
- Appellee (State): Did not oppose the proposed summary reversal of the district court's decision. (paras headnotes)
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in partially denying the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence. (paras headnotes, [RP 40])
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. (paras headnotes)
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Fry CJ and Kennedy J. concurring):
The Court of Appeals determined that the district court's decision to partially deny the Defendant's motion to suppress evidence was incorrect. The Court relied on the reasoning outlined in its calendar notice, which proposed summary reversal. The State's decision not to oppose the proposed reversal further supported the Court's conclusion. Consequently, the Court reversed the district court's ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. (paras headnotes)