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 aggravated stalking of his ex-wife, who had obtained multiple restraining orders against him due to his threatening and harassing behavior. The incidents leading to the conviction occurred in 1998, when the Defendant followed the victim on multiple occasions, left a threatening note on her car, and violated the restraining order by coming within 100 yards of her workplace. The Defendant was arrested after being pursued by a University of New Mexico (UNM) police officer outside the officer's jurisdiction (paras 2-9).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated stalking. The trial court denied the Defendant's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence, as well as his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel (headnotes, paras 15-16).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the arrest was illegal because the UNM police officer lacked jurisdiction, the inventory search of his vehicle was invalid, and the admission of evidence obtained from the search was not harmless error. Additionally, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object to certain testimony (paras 1, 15-16, 33-34).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the arrest was lawful under the "fresh pursuit" doctrine, the inventory search was conducted according to established procedures, and the evidence was properly admitted. The State also argued that the Defendant's counsel acted competently (paras 15-16, 20, 28-30).
Legal Issues
- Did the UNM police officer have jurisdiction to arrest the Defendant under the "fresh pursuit" doctrine?
- Was the inventory search of the Defendant's vehicle lawful, and was the evidence obtained admissible?
- Did the Defendant receive ineffective assistance of counsel?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for aggravated stalking (para 37).
Reasons
Per M. Christina Armijo J. (Wechsler and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction of Arresting Officers: The Court held that the "fresh pursuit" doctrine applied to UNM police officers, allowing them to pursue and arrest individuals outside their statutory jurisdiction if they observed a felony being committed within their jurisdiction. The arresting officer had probable cause to believe the Defendant was committing aggravated stalking, a felony, and the pursuit was continuous and lawful. The involvement of a second officer in the arrest was also valid under the "team concept" approach (paras 19-25).
Inventory Search and Evidence Admissibility: The inventory search of the Defendant's vehicle was conducted according to established procedures and was reasonable. The items seized were either listed in the inventory or obtained later through a valid search warrant. The Defendant failed to demonstrate that the admission of the evidence prejudiced the trial's outcome (paras 26-32).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: The Court found that defense counsel's performance did not fall below the standard of a reasonably competent attorney. Counsel had objected to prior bad acts evidence before trial and made strategic decisions during cross-examination. The Defendant failed to show that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the alleged errors (paras 33-36).