AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 driving while intoxicated (DWI) under the City Code of Aztec, New Mexico. The case arose from the City of Aztec's adoption of state motor vehicle statutes by reference in its municipal code. The Defendant challenged the City's failure to introduce the relevant municipal ordinance into evidence during trial, arguing that this omission meant the City had not met its evidentiary burden (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• City of Aztec Municipal Court: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated DWI (para 2).
• Eleventh Judicial District Court: After a trial de novo, the Defendant was again convicted. The Defendant's motion to dismiss, based on the City's failure to introduce the ordinance into evidence, was denied (para 2).
• New Mexico Court of Appeals, No. 28,705: The Court upheld the conviction, concluding that the district court took judicial notice of the municipal ordinance (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the City failed to meet its evidentiary burden by not introducing the relevant municipal ordinance into evidence, which was necessary to prove the prima facie elements of the case (para 2).
• City of Aztec: Contended that the ordinance was adopted by reference and accessible to the court, and that the district court could take judicial notice of it (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether municipal ordinances should be treated as law rather than adjudicative facts that must be pled and proven.
• Whether the district court properly took judicial notice of the municipal ordinance under which the Defendant was convicted.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction and held that municipal ordinances are law and may be judicially noticed by all courts in New Mexico (paras 20-21).

Reasons

Per Serna J. (Chávez CJ., Maes, Bosson, and Daniels JJ. concurring):

• The Court reviewed the historical treatment of municipal ordinances as adjudicative facts, which required them to be pled and proven. This rule originated from a time when municipal ordinances were difficult to access, but modern technology and open government practices have made such ordinances readily available and verifiable (paras 8, 14-15).
• The Court distinguished between judicial notice of facts and judicial notice of law, emphasizing that municipal ordinances should be treated as law, not facts. Courts routinely take judicial notice of statutes and judicial decisions, and municipal ordinances should be no different (paras 12-13).
• The Court overruled prior precedents requiring municipal ordinances to be proven as facts, including Muller v. City of Albuquerque, Coe v. City of Albuquerque, and Gen. Servs. Corp. v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Bernalillo County. The Court found that the rationale for these precedents had been undermined by advancements in legal research and accessibility (para 17).
• The Court held that treating municipal ordinances as law enhances appellate review and does not prejudice defendants, as they have notice of the ordinances under which they are charged. The Court also clarified that parties should ensure the court has access to the correct version of an ordinance when its existence or content is disputed (paras 18-19).
• Applying the new rule, the Court affirmed the Defendant's conviction, as the ordinance under which he was charged was not in dispute, and the district court could take judicial notice of it (paras 16, 20).