Title: Campos v. State

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

580 P.2d 966 (1978) 91 N.M. 745 Tomas CAMPOS, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent. No. 11963. Supreme Court of New Mexico. June 26, 1978. Rehearing Denied July 13, 1978. *967 John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Martha A. Daly, Asst. App. Defender, Santa Fe, for petitioner. Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Sammy J.G. Quintana, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent. FEDERICI, Justice. Appellant (hereafter Campos), a penitentiary inmate, was a defense witness in the trial of Faustino Castillo, Jr., who was charged with escape from the penitentiary. Campos and other defense witnesses had prior felony convictions. The State, for impeachment purposes, wished to cross-examine Campos regarding the prior felony convictions. Campos was called as a witness. The State agreed not to use any testimony elicited during cross-examination in any subsequent habitual offender prosecution of him. The trial court advised Campos of the terms of this verbal agreement, and instructed him that his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination was superseded by the offer. During cross-examination, and contrary to the direction of the trial court, Campos refused to answer the question of whether he had been convicted of escape from the penitentiary. Campos was then sentenced for contempt of court for his refusal to answer. Appellant Campos took an appeal to the Court of Appeals and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. He then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with this Court. We reverse. The State, through the prosecuting attorney, did not make application to the trial court for a grant of immunity nor did the trial court issue an order pursuant to N.M.R.Crim.P. 58 [§ 41-23-58, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Inter. Supp. 1976-77)], which reads: In lieu or instead of the above procedure the trial court advised appellant of the terms of the verbal stipulation by the State: Campos contends that the verbal offer of immunity was improper both procedurally and substantively for failure to comply with N.M.R.Crim.P. 58 and that the State, through the district attorney, and the trial court have no power to grant immunity except as may be provided by the Constitution or by statute or by rule of Court. There being no applicable constitutional provision or statute in this State, any grant of immunity must be governed by the rule of criminal procedure set forth above. In Apodaca v. Viramontes, 53 N.M. 514, 212 P.2d 425 (1949), this very issue was presented to the New Mexico Supreme Court: Whether the district attorney and the district court, absent constitutional or statutory enablement, are authorized to grant immunity from prosecution for an offense to which incriminating answers might expose the witness. The Court held: Quoting from text authority the Court continued: Id. at 518, 212 P.2d 427. See State ex rel. Plant v. Sceresse, 84 N.M. 312, 502 P.2d 1002 (1972); State v. Plant, 86 N.M. 2, 518 P.2d 961 (Ct.App. 1973). Criminal Rule 58 was promulgated and approved by this Court to provide a method by which a grant of immunity could be secured and the constitutional proscription against self-incrimination protected. The rule requires an application (which we hold to mean "written application") by the district attorney and an order (which we hold to mean "written order") by the trial court ordering the person to testify. The order must also contain a specific condition that the State of New Mexico shall forego the prosecution of the person for criminal conduct about which he is questioned and testifies. Neither a written application by the district attorney nor a written order by the trial court was provided in this case. The sentence of contempt imposed on Campos by the trial court is reversed. IT IS SO ORDERED. McMANUS, C.J., and SOSA, EASLEY and PAYNE, JJ., concur.