1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: Jan ua ry 11, 201 8

4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 6363 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 ELEX US GR OVE S, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Br ett R

. L ove le ss, D istri ct Jud ge

12 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 13 Scott W isniewski, A ssistant Public De fender 14 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 15 fo r Appe llant

16 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 17 Martha A nne Kelly , A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 DA NIEL S, Justice. 3 { 1} De fendant Elexus G roves has been indicted on two counts of fi rst-degree 4 m urder and other serious felony offenses. In this in terlocutory appeal she challenges 5 a dis tr ic t c ourt or de r of pr etri al de te nti on tha t w as ba se d ontw o in depe nde nt and 6 alternative detention grou nds cont ained in A rticle II, Sec tion 1 3 of the Ne w Me xico 7 Co nst itu tio n. 8 { 2} The f

irst ground wa s that Def

endant was detainabl e under the provis ion th at 9 ha s be enpart

of our Co nst itu tio n si nc e w e be cam e a sta te , pr ovi din g an e xc ep tio n to 10 the ge ne ra l r igh t t o pr etri al r el ea se f or de fe ndants c harg ed

w ithc ap ita l of

fe nse s. 11 { 3} The sec ond g round was based on the new detention aut h o ri t y a d ded by Ne w 12 Mexico voters in the Novem ber 2016 general el ec t i on, allowing denial of pretrial 13 re le as e of

af el ony de fen dant i f the pr ose cu tin g auth or ity r eque sts ahe ar ing a nd 14 pr ove s by

c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing ev ide nc e tha t no re le as e co ndi tio ns w ill r ea sona bly 1 5 p r o t e c tt h e s a f

e t y o f a n y o t h e r

p e r s o n o r

t h e c o mm

u n i t y. 16 { 4} W e hold that the district court’ s detention order w as law fully based on the new 17 constitu tional auth ority for pre trial detention of dangerous defendants, and we aff irm 18 it on th at ground. As a result, there is no need to add ress in this o p i n i o n t he issues 19 De fendant raises relating to the a lternative ground for the dist rict court’ s action based2

1 on the old

c ap ital -o ff

en se e xc ep tio n, am atte r tha t w e ha ve a ddr es se d se parate ly in 2 State v. A me er , S-1 -SC- 36 39 5. See N. M. S up. Ct. order ( May 8, 2017). 3 I. FACTUAL AND PR OCEDURAL BACKG ROUND 4 { 5} Sh o rt l y a ft er 6 a. m . on Fr iday , January 18, 2017, a m an and a w om an stole a 5 va n i n A l b u qu e r qu e . T h e t w o a t t e m p t e dt o f l e e p u r s u i n g p o l i c e o f

f i c e r s , d r i v ing 6 reck le ss ly at ex tre m el y hi gh sp eed s t hr ou gh res ident ia l ci ty stre et s. Defe nd an t, s ho wn 7 to b e th e ap pare nt dri ve r of the sto le n van by

phy sic al e vid en ce a nd h er pos tarr es t 8 sta te m en ts t o po lic e, c ra she d it int o anoth er car

a t an in te rs ec tio n, kil lin g ate en ag e 9 gir l, f at al ly inj ur ing the gir l’ s m oth er , a nd b re ak ing the le g of the gir l’ s th re e- y ear- old 10 brother. A s logg ed by the v an ’s GP S d ata, a m om ent before the c rash the van wa s 11 traveling at seventy -eight m iles per hour in a thirty -five-m ile-per- hour residential 12 zone, and on im

pact it wa s traveling at sixty -eight m iles per hour. 13 { 6} Af

ter the fatal cra sh, the offe nders j um ped out of t he stolen van and contin ued 14 the ir f lig ht f ro m th e poli ce . T he y

r anthr ougha dj ac en t ne ighbor hood s, c lim

bin g 15 backy ard fences and attem pting to distrac t residents so they could s t ea l an other 16 ve hic le

. A ft er

the y succ ee de d inste al ing a nothe r car, the y e sc ap ed the pur sui ng 17 of fi ce rs but le ft be hin d anum

be r of cl ue s tha t re sul te d in D ef en dant’ s id en tif

ic at ion 18 and her arr est two day s later.3

1 { 7} A m ong the cl ue s, of fi ce rs fo und a ce ll phon e in the ba ck y ar d of one w itn es s 2 who had called police to report that two unkn own people had j um ped over his fence. 3 In ve st ig at ionof

that c el l ph one r ev ea le d aF ac eb ook ac co unt be lon gin g to 4 co part ic ipant P au l G ar ci a an d ac al l r ec or d sh ow ing c ont ac t be tw een Garci a and 5 D ef en dant. 6 { 8} Ne ar the place wher e the second vehicle had been stolen, officer s discov ered 7 a j ac ke t c ont ai nin g ale tte r ad dr es se d to D ef en dant f ro m a n a tto rn ey

of fe ri ng t o 8 re pr es en t he r in c onne ct ionw ithhe r pe ndi ng c ri m ina l c harg es . 9 { 9} O ff

ic er s ob ta ine d sec ur ity vid eo fo ota ge fr om a busi ne ss al ong the of fe nde rs ’ 10 es ca pe r out e tha t r ec or de d tw o pe rs ons ap pe ar ing to be D ef en dant and G ar ci a 11 cr oss ing apark ing lot

. I n th e vid eo , the pe rs on i de nti fi ed as G ar ci a w as w al kin g w ith 12 onl y one sho e, w hic h a

ppe ar ed to m at chasho e fo und at the w re ck ed

van. 13 { 10} Following her arr est, D efendant initially appeared in m e tr op olitan court, which 14 set relea se conditio ns includ ing th e re quirem ent t h at she post a $10 0,000 secured 15 bond

. T he S ta te f

ile d a m oti on in distr ic t cour t to deny D ef

en dant’ s r el ea se pe ndi ng 16 trial under the new provisi ons of Article II, Section 13 of th e N ew Mexi co 17 Constitu tion, arguing that no conditio ns of releas e a court could im

pose would protect 18 the safety

of others. T he case w as prom ptly transfer red to the district court, w hich has4

1 e x c l u s i ve pre tri al de te nt io n a ut ho rit y as a st atut ory

co ur t o f rec or d. See Torrez v. 2 W hitaker , 2018-NMS C-___, ¶¶ 71, 75, ___ P. 3d, _

__ (S-1-SC -36379 , Jan. 11, 2018). 3 { 11} Afte r a he ar ing a t w hic h no w itn es se s pe rs ona lly te sti fi ed f or e ith er sid e, the 4 district court denied th e State ’ s de t en tion m otion , c ontin ued the $10 0,000 secured 5 bond , and im

posed add ition al conditi ons of relea se. Beca use that order has not been 6 appealed, w e need not address it further. 7 { 12} A gr an d j ur

y the n in dic te d D ef

en dant o n m

ult ipl e ch ar ge s r el at ed

to the de ad ly 8 January 18 ch as e, inc lud ing tw o co unt s of fi rs t- de gr ee fe lon y m ur de r, carr

y ing 9 pot en tia l se nte nc es of lif e im pr iso nm en t. N MS A 1978 , § 30- 2- 1( A )( 2) ( 1994 ) 10 (s ta tut or ily cl as sif

y ing fe lon y m

ur de r as a “ ca

pit al f el ony ”) ; se e als o NMSA 197 8, § 11 31- 18- 14 ( 2009 ) (p ro vid ing that a pe rs on c onvi ct ed

of a“ ca pit al f el ony ” sha ll be 12 sentenced to life im

prisonm ent). 13 { 13} The day

after indictm ent, the S tate filed a second detentio n m otion , based 14 exclusivelyon the new authority in Article II, Sec tion 1 3 allowing denial of pre trial 15 rel eas e whe n n o re le as e co nd it io ns w il l re as on ab ly pro te ctth e sa fet y of o th ers . To 16 supp ort its request, the new m otion proffer ed details of the newly -indicted offenses 17 an d a pa tte rn of

pa st c ri m ina l c ondu ct , inc lud ing sig nif ic an tly ape ndi ng p ro se cu tio n 18 in S an dova l C ounty . That ca se , ba se d onoc curr en ce s j ust af eww ee ks e ar lie r, a lso5

1 inv olv ed

asto le n ve hicl e an d a hig h- spe ed a tte m pte d e sc ap e fr om

pol ic e by 2 Defendant and coparticipant Paul Gar cia that ended with their cr ashing th e stolen 3 ve hic le

. T he m oti on r ec ite d th at in the S an dova l C ou nt y ca se D ef en dant w as on 4 pr etri al r el ea se c ondi tio ns tha t sh e al re ady ha d vi ola te d by

a fa ilure to ap pe ar by

the 5 tim e she com

m itted the offenses in this case. 6 { 14} That postindi ctm ent detent ion m otion first cam e before a tem porary 7 arra ignm ent j udge, w ho heard presentations o f counsel and a pretrial ser vices 8 of fi ce r’ s r isk -a sse ssm en t- ins tr um en t- ba se d de te rm ina tio n th at she c oul d no t “ m ak e 9 a [r el ea se ] r ec om

m enda ti on tha t w oul d r ea sona bly e nsur e publ ic sa fe ty

. ” T he 10 ar ra ign m en t j udge e nte re d an or de r fo r de te nti on r el y ing on the “ na ture and 11 ci rc um stanc es of

the of fe nse c harg ed , ” D ef

en dant’ s “ pa st con duc t, his tor y r el at ing to 12 drug or alcohol abu se, c rim inal histo ry and record c oncerning appear an ce at court 13 pr oc ee din gs, ” an d “ the na tur e an d se ri ousn es s of the dange r to any

pe rs on o r the 14 co m m un it y .” 15 { 15} De fense counse l fi l ed a m otion to reviewthat detention order, arguing that 16 co llate ra l e sto ppe l pr inc ipl es pr ec lud ed the a rr ai gnm en t j udge f ro m or de ri ng 17 detention after

a previous judge had denied d et en t i o n and that “ no evidence was 18 pr es en t ed to [the arr aignm ent j udge] upon which she could base her ruling that6

1 pr et ria l d et en ti on [w]as ap pr op ria te .” 2 { 16} At the hear ing on De fendant’ s m otion to review the detention order, the district 3 j udge who was a ssign ed to p re s ide over postin dictm ent proceedings cond ucted an 4 ev ide nti ar

y he ar ing a t wh ic h he cons ide re d ar gum en ts and fa ct ua l re pr es en ta tio ns o f 5 counsel, the contents of a num ber of court fi l es ref

lecting Def

endant’ s crim inal 6 his to ry , t h e r i s k a s s e s s m e n t p r o v i d e d b y p r e t r i a l s e rv i c e s , a n d t h e t r a n s c r i p t of the 7 pri or he a r i ng a t w hi c h de t e nt i on w a s or de r e d. N o l i ve w i t ne ss t e st i m on y wa s 8 p r e s e n t e db y e i t h e r

p a rt y. 9 { 17} In addition to the factual cir cum stances underly ing th e current prosecution that 10 w er e re co unt ed

in doc um en ts in the co urt f ile s and d es cr ibe d e ar lie r in this opi nio n, 11 the d i st

r ict court expressed concern about Def endant’ s conduct in the rec ent Sandoval 12 Co unty

c as e. T he c ourt’ s c onc er ns i nc lud ed

D ef en dant’ s a tte m

pt t o a vo id arre st i n 13 tha t c as e by part ic ipa tin g in a re ck le ss high -s pe ed ch as e tha t e nde d on ly a ft er c ra shi ng 14 the stolen getaway

vehicle. The court also noted that the relea se conditio ns ordered 15 in the Sandoval Coun ty case before De fendant com m itted sim ilar unlawf

ul condu ct 16 in this c a se i nc l ud e d t he r e qu i r e m e nt t hat sh e no t vi ol a t e a ny st a t e l a w s. T he court 17 also pointed out that even before com m itting the crim es in this case D efendant failed 18 to com

ply with h er release cond ition s in that pendin g case byfailing to appear for a7

1 scheduled prelim inary

hearing, c ausing is suance of a w arrant for her arre st that had 2 not been served at the tim e of the events in this case. 3 { 18} A t the c onc lus ionof the he ar ing the dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d D ef en dant’ s m oti on 4 to r ev ie w th e pr io r de te nti on o rd er a nd o rd er ed

D ef en dant t o be de ta ine d pe ndi ng 5 tr ia l. O ne of

the state d le ga l gr ound s f or the de te nti on o rd er, a

the or y that ha d no t 6 been proposed by

the State b u t wa s raised sua spont e by the district court, w as that 7 the district judge believed De fen d an t wa s charged w ith a “ capital offense” wher e 8 “ ‘th e p ro o f i s ev i d en to r t h e p re s u m p t i o n g re at .’” 9 { 19} A s an a lte rn at ive grou nd fo r de te nti on, the c ourt a gr ee d w iththe S ta te a nd 10 co nc lud ed

that D ef en dant ’s histor

y of dange ro us c ondu ct

a nd f ai lur e to a

bid e by 11 re qui re m en ts of pr ev iou s re le as e or de rs es ta bli she d tha t “ no co ndi tio ns of r el ea se 12 [w oul d] r ea sona

bly pr ot ectthe sa fe ty

of a ny oth er pe rs on o r the c om

m uni ty f ro m 13 D ef en dant. ” T he co urt als o re j ec te d De fe ndant’ s coll at er al es top pe l ar gum en t, both 14 because the interlocutory m etropolitan court order of relea se o r detent ion is not a final 15 determ ination of an issue of pretrial dete ntion and because the intervening grand jury 16 ind ic tm en t r ep re se nte d asig nif ic an t c hange in ci rc um stanc es . 17 { 20} D ef

en dant a ppe al ed to thi s Co urt to re vie w the f ina l de te nti on o rd er , a rg uin g 18 (1) that she did not have fair notice that the capital-offense theory wa s goin g to be a8

1 ba sis of

de te nti on a nd the re fo re did not pr ep ar e to d ef

en d a ga ins t i t; (2 ) tha t the 2 ev ide nc e at the he ar ing w as ins uf fi ci en t to esta

bli sh tha t the pr oof

w as e vid en t or

the 3 pr es um pti on g re at

und er the c ap ita l- of

fe nse the or

y ; and (3 ) the e vid en ce , w hic h di d 4 not in clude live witness testim ony , w as insufficient to j ustify detention u nder the new 5 detention -for- dangerousn ess constitu tional grou nds for denial of pretrial re lease. 6 { 21} W e scheduled oral argum ent and at its conclusi on announ ced o ur aff irm ance 7 of the detention order on the detention-for-dangerousness ground, without the need 8 to reach other issues, and advis ed that we would follow up with this p u blish ed 9 op in io n. See Ne w Me xico Suprem e Court order, April 12, 2017 (aff irm ing the district 10 court). 11 II. DISC US SION 12 { 22} Article V I, Sec tion 2 of the N ewMexico Co n s t i t u t ion assig ns this Court 13 ex cl usi ve j ur isd ic tio n ov er appe al s f ro m f ina l di str ic t c ourt j udgm en ts “ imposing a 14 se nte nc e of

de ath or li fe im pr iso nm en t. ” T his Co urt corr es pond ing ly ha s e xc lus ive 15 j ur isd ic tio n ov er int er loc uto ry appe al s, inc lud ing appe al s f ro m int er loc uto ry

r el ea se 16 an d de te nti on o rd er s in cas es li ke thi s on e in whic h ade fe ndant i s c harg ed w ith 17 fir st -d eg ree m

ur de r, an off

en se th atcu rren tl y carr ie s a p os si bl e li fe s en te nc e. State v. 18 Brown , 201 4- N MS C-0 38 , ¶ 10, 338 P

. 3d 1 276 (c iti ng Sta te v . Sm all wo od ,9

1 2 0 0 7

- N M S C

- 0 0 5 , ¶

¶ 6

- 1 1 , 1 4 1 N

. M

. 1 7 8 , 1 5 2 P

. 3 d8 2 1 i n h o l d i n g t h a tt h e S up r e me 2 Court has exclusive jurisdiction ov er a ppe als of rele ase condition s in first-degree 3 m urder prosecutions). 4 { 23} NMS A 1978, Se ction 39 -3-3(A )(2) ( 1972 ) perm its an ap peal from an “ order 5 de ny ing r el ie f on a pe tit ionto re vie wc ondi tio ns o f re le as e, ” an d A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 6 13 o f the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n r equir es that “ [a ] n a ppe al f ro m a n or de r de ny ing 7 ba il sh al l b e g iv en pre fere nc e o ve r al l o th er m at te rs .” 8 { 24} Ru le 12- 204( D )(2 )( b) N MR A , gov er nin g pr oc ed

ur es in ap pe al s f

ro m ba il 9 orders, provides th at a district c ourt dec ision shall be se t aside only if it is shown that 10 the de ci sio n (1 ) “ is ar

bitrary , ca pr ic iou s, or re fl ec ts an ab use of dis cr et ion , ” (2 ) “ is n ot 11 su pp or te d b y

su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce,” o r (3 ) “ is ot he rwis e n ot in acco rd an ce wi th law.” 12 { 25} “ A n a

buse of dis cr et ion oc curs w he n the co urt ex ce ed s the boun ds of r ea son, 13 all the circum stanc es before it being con sidered.” Brown , 201 4- N MS C- 038, ¶ 43 14 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). Si m ilarl y , ade ci sio n “ is arb itr ar y a nd 15 ca pr ic iou s if

it is unr ea sona

ble or w ith out ar at ion al ba sis , w he n vi ew ed in lig ht of

the 16 whole re cord.” N.M

. A tt’y G en. v . N.M

. Pub. Re g. Com m’ n , 201 3- N MS C- 042, ¶ 10, 17 309 P. 3d 8 9 ( int er

na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Su bst an tia l e vid en ce is 18 such rel ev an t e vid en ce that a r ea sona ble m ind w oul d f ind a de qua te to supp ort a10

1 conclusio n.” State ex rel. King v. B & B I nv. G rp., Inc. , 201 4- N MS C- 024 , ¶ 12, 329 2 P. 3d 65 8 (internal quotatio n m arks and citation om itted). 3 { 26} Wit h t h o s e p ri n ci p l es i n m i n d , we no w ad d re s s t h e m er i t s o f D e f e n d a n t ’s 4 ap pe al

. 5 { 27} The proce edings b elow occur red shortly

after adop t i o n of the constitu tional 6 am en dm en t c re at ing ne w au tho ri ty fo r de te nti on o f de fe ndants w ho are f ound to be 7 too dang erous to be released pending trial and before prom ulgatio n of o ur procedural 8 rules governing applicatio n o f the broad constitut ional langu age, in particular new 9 Ru le 5- 409 N MR

A , gov er nin g de te nti on p ro ce ed ing s indis tr ic t c ourt. 10 { 28} In Torrez , 201 8- N MS C- ___, w e tr ac ed the his tor

y a nd p ur pose of the 11 de te nti on- fo r- dange ro usne ss c onst it ut ional a m en dm en t and p ro vid ed gui danc e fo r 12 co urts and l iti gants in co nduc tin g de te nti on he ari ng s. T his is the f ir st o pin ionin 1 3 w h i c h we ap p l y Torrez ’ s gu idanc e in an a ppe llate r ev ie wof

ade te nti on r

uli ng. 14 { 29} A s w e ex pla ine d in Torrez , a detention h earing requires a j udge to m ake three 15 cate gor ie s of

de te r m i n at i o n s i nd e c idi ng w he the r pr etri al de te nti on s houl d be or de re d: 16 (1 ) “ w hic h in fo rm at ionin an y f orm c ar ri es su ffi ci en t i ndi ci a of r el ia bil ity to be 17 w orthy of co nsi de ratio n, ” (2 ) “ the ex te nt to w hic h tha t inf orm at ion w ould in di cate 18 that a defendant m ay be lik el y to po se a threa t to the safety of others if re leased11

1 pe ndi ng tri al , ” an d ( 3) “ w he the r an y pot en tia l pr etri al r el ea se c ondi ti ons ‘ w ill 2 reasonably

protect the safety ’ o f others, as required by the new c onsti tutio nal standard 3 in Article II, Sec tion 1 3.” Torrez , 2018 -N MS C- ___, ¶¶ 99- 102. O ur

appe llate r ole in 4 de te rm ini ng w he the r subs tanti al e vidence sup porte d th e dis tr ic t c ourt de ci sio n and 5 w he the r the j udge abuse d hi s di sc re tio n or a ct ed a rb itr ar ily

o r c a p r i ci ousl y

ne ce ssari ly 6 m ust a lso take tho se a na ly se s in to c onsi de ratio n. 7 { 30} Looking at the first of those fa ct o rs , we conclude that the dis trict court w as 8 entitled to take int o account the factually undis puted in form ation from court and law 9 en fo rcem en t f

i le s t ha t h as be en su m

m ari zedin th is op in io n. See id. ¶ 110 ( hol din g 10 that live witnesses m ay but are not required to be called at dete ntion hearings and that 11 j udges “ m ay

consider all reasonably

reliable inform ation, w ithou t regard to strictures 12 of the f orm al r ules of e vid en ce ”) ; se e als o Ru le 5- 401( C) N MR A ( sum m ar iz ing 13 inf orm at ionac ourt m ay co nsi de r in d et er m ini ng r el ea se c ondi tio ns tha t m igh t 14 “ re as ona

bly e nsur e the ap pe ar an ce of the de fe ndant as re qui re d and the sa fe ty of a ny 15 other person and the comm unity ”). 16 { 31} T he re is no th in g in the r ec or d to r ai se se ri ous doub ts a bout the c re dib ili ty

of 17 the police officers who cond ucted the investi gations and prepared the r esulting sworn 18 and unsworn r eports or of the independ ent victim s and other witnesses who re ported12

1 their own interlocking and cross-corroborating o bservations of D efen da nt ’ s a c tivities 2 to the pol ic e. I n it s t ot al ity the f ac tua l i nf orm at ionabout

D ef en dant’ s c ur

re nt and 3 pr ev iou s of

fe nse s th at

w as r el ie d onby

the di st ric t c ourt c ar

ri ed str ong ind ic iaof 4 re lia bil ity in es ta bli shi ng the his tor ic al f

ac ts s um m ar iz ed e ar lie r in this opi nio n. 5 { 32} The n ex t required step is to consid er how that inform ation bears on an 6 as se ssm en t of

“ the na tur e an d se ri ousn es s of the dange r to any pe rs on o r the 7 co m m uni ty that w oul d be pose d by the de fe ndant’ s re le as e, ” as r equir ed by Ru le 5- 8 401( C) (4 ) in d et er

m ini ng a ppropri at e re le as e co ndi tio ns. T he inf orm at ionin the 9 record strongly

suppo rts the conclusio n that Def endant has un controlled prop ensities 10 to persist in th e com m issio n of unlawful and g ra v el y dangerous con duct, as 11 ex em pli fi ed by thr ee ve hic le the ft s inj ust am atte r of a fe w w ee ks, e ac h f oll ow ed by 12 reck le ss ly dan ge ro us fli gh ts fro m au th or it ie s o n t he pu bl ic st reet s. See Ru le 5- 13 401( C) (3 )( a) ( al low ing the c ourt’ s a sse ssm en t t o take int o a cc ount “ the his tor

y a nd 14 ch ar ac te ri sti cs of

the de fe ndant, inc lud ing

. . . the de fe ndant’ s c hara ct er , phy sic al a nd 15 m en ta l c ondi tio n, . . . pa st c ondu ct , . . . [and] cr im ina l hist or y ”)

. T he und isp ute d f

ac ts 16 inc lud e tha t tw o of

the ve hic le the ft s and high -s pe ed fl igh ts end ed in veh ic le c ra she s, 17 the se co nd caus ing the de aths o f tw o pe opl e an d th e se ri ous inj ur y of a nothe r, j ust 18 m inu tes befo re D ef

en dant f le d a ga in w ithhe r partne r, sto le athi rd ve hic le , a nd13

1 en ga ge d iny et

a nothe r m oto ri ze d f

lig ht f ro m auth or iti es . 2 { 33} W e em

pha siz e tha t the r el ev an t c onsi de ratio n f or a court is not the c at eg or y or 3 pu ni sh ab il it y

of t he ch arg edcri m e. See Torrez , 201 8- NMSC -_ __, ¶ 101

. I n a 4 de te nti on h eari ng the c ourt’ s f oc used co nc er

n is not to im pose pun ish m en t f

or pa st 5 co nd uc t bu t in st ead to ass es s a d efen da nt ’s li ke ly futu re co nd uc t. See id. ( ex pla ini ng 6 tha t “ the part ic ular fa ct s and c ir cu m stanc es in curr en tly c harg ed c as es , a s w el l as a 7 defendant’ s prior conduct, charged or uncharged, can be helpful in m aking reasoned 8 predictions o f future dangerousness”). 9 { 34} In this case, De fendant’ s past condu ct cre ated a strong basis for rea s oned 10 infe r e nc e s of he r l i ke l y f ut ur e c on du c t

. D e f

e nd a nt ha d no t si m

pl y c om m i tted an 11 iso la te d a ct

of the ft or of r ec kle ss dri vin g. In the r ec or d be fo re the dis tr ic t c ourt i n th is 12 ca se, the totality

of D efendant’ s conduct fullyj ustifies the dis trict cou rt ’s 13 de te rm ina tio n th at

she pr es en te d an un ac ce pta ble ri sk of co nti nue d en dange rm en t of 14 the pub lic in the sa m e m an ne r if re le as ed , a de te rm ina tio n w el l w ith in the bounds of 15 reas on an d a pr op er exer ci se of jud ic ia l d is cret io n. See Brown , 20 14 -NMSC -0 38 , ¶ 16 13. 17 { 35} As to the third part of the detention analy sis, several facts supp orted the district 18 court’ s determ ination by clear and convin cing evidence that no con ditio ns of pretrial14

1 re le as e the c ourt c oul d im pose unde r Ru le 5- 401 w oul d re as ona bly pr ote ct the sa fe ty 2 o f a n y o t h e r

p e r s o n o r

t h e c o mm

u n i t y. 3 { 36} T he c le ar

a nd con vin ci ng evi de nc e standard is a re co gni ze d ter m of ar t in our 4 j ur isp ru de nc e. I t r ef

er s to “ ev ide nc e tha t i nst an tly ti lt[ s] the sc al es in the a ff irm at ive 5 when w eighed against th e evidence in oppos ition and the fact f in der’ s m ind is left 6 with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” In re L oc ate lli , 2007-NMS C7 029, ¶ 7 , 1 4 1 N

. M

. 7 5 5 , 1 6 1 P

. 3 d2 5 2 ( a l t e r a t i o n i n o r i g i n a l ) ( i n t e rn a l qu ota tio n 8 m arks and citation om itted). 9 { 37} The de te rm ina tio n w he the r av ai la ble r el ea se c ondi tio ns w oul d r e a s o n a b ly 10 protect oth er s does not re qui re sc ie nti fi c ac cura cy a ny m or e than any

oth er pr ed ic tio n 11 of fu tur e hum an be ha vio r. T he ke y w or d is re ason abl

y , w hic h r equir es the e xe rc ise 12 of re as one d j udgm en t. A s w e not ed in Brown , w e cannot

de m an d th at

hum anbe ing s 13 in jud ic ia l ro be s b e o m ni sc ie nt

. See 201 4- N MS C- 038, ¶ 54 , ( rec ogni zi ng tha t “ no 14 j udge c anpr ed ic t the f uture w ithc er

ta inty or guarante e tha t a

pe rs on w ill appe ar

in 15 court or

r e f r a i n f r om c om m i t t i ng f ut ur e c r i m e s” )

. I ns t e a d, w e r e qu i r e t hatj ud ge s 16 co nsi de r av ai la

ble inf orm at ion , e xe rc ise r ea son, a nd m ak e tho ught fu l j udgm en ts. 17 { 38} In thi s ca se the re w er e str ong re as ons supp ortin g ac onc lus ionthat no a va ila ble 18 re le ase co ndi tio ns a

c ourt c oul d im

pose w oul d pr ote ct

a ga ins t D ef

en dant’ s li ke ly15

1 fu tur e dange ro us con duc t. Apart fr om he r re co rd of co nti nue d c ri m ina l a ct ivi ty a nd 2 dangerous con duct while on previous conditio ns o f release, D efendant had 3 de m onstrate d apa tte rnof r ef usa l t o c om

ply w ithdir ec tio ns of th e co urts and o f 4 police. When Def

endant comm itted the offenses in this case, she w as on sup ervised 5 re le as e in tw o othe r ca se s. D ef en dant’ s co ndi tio ns of

pr ior r el ea se r equir ed , in part , 6 tha t sh e not

vio la te a ny

state law s and tha t sh e app ear at sc he dul ed

c ourt pr oc ee din gs, 7 y et she r ef use d to ab ide by tho se co ndi tio ns. A s the St at e poin te d ou t be low , e ve n if 8 the c ourt w er e to i m

pose condi tio ns a s e xtr em e as G PS m oni tor ing , she c oul d st ill 9 ste al a nothe r ve hic le a nd r es ist a rr es t by e nga gin g in an oth er dange ro us or , a s inthi s 10 case, deadly

escape f rom police. 11 { 39} W e co nc lud e tha t the re w as subs tanti al ev ide nc e in the re co rd to s up po rt t he 12 dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te nti on de ci sio n an d tha t the co urt ne ith er abuse d it s di sc re tio n no r 13 ac te d arb itr ar ily

or c ap ri ci ousl y

in fi ndi ng b y

c le ar a nd con vin ci ng evi de nc e tha t no 14 conditi ons of release that could be ordered for Def endant would reasonably protect 15 the sa fe ty

of oth er s. 16 { 40} A n ad dit ion al ite m of inf orm at ion tha t the dis tr ic t co urt too k into a ccount, 17 al tho ugh unne ce ssary to our f ind ing of sub stanti al e vid en ce on this r ec or d, w as the 18 hig h- dange ro usne ss s co re D ef en dant r ec ei ve d onthe Arnold P ubl ic S af

ety16

1 Assessm ent (PSA ), a validated risk assessm ent that has been approved by this Court 2 in th e Sec on d J ud ic ia l Di st ric t as a pi lo t p ro ject. See Ru le 5-4 01(C ) (a uth or iz ing 3 co nsi de ratio n of

“ an y a va ila ble r es ult s of

apr etri al r is k as se ssm en t i nstru m en t 4 ap pr ove d by

the S upr em e Co urt f

or use in the juri sd icti on” in m ak ing r el ea se 5 d e c i s i o n s )

. T h e P S Ai s a n at i o n a lly

r ec ogni ze d sc ie nti fi ca lly

va lid at ed r isk a sse ssm en t 6 ins tr um en t tha t c ourts in an inc re as ing num be r of j ur isd ic tio ns use as an ai d, tho ugh 7 ne ve r as th e o nl y

fact or , in m ak in g det en ti on an d re le as e d eci si on s. Se e, e . g. , State v. 8 R obi nson , 160 A

. 3d 1 , 11 (2 01 7) ( de sc ri bin g N ewJe rs ey ’ s st at uto ri ly -r equir ed

use 9 of the P SAa nd e m

pha siz ing that “

judge s c onsi de r the P SAbut m ak e the ult im at e 10 de ci sio n onr el ea se a ft er r ev ie w ing oth er

r el ev an t i nfor m at iona s w el l” ); A rn old 11 Fo un da ti on , The F

ront End of th e Crim inal Just ice System , P ubl ic Saf et y A ssessm en t , 12 av ail abl e at

h t t p : / / w w w . a r n o l d f

o u n d a t i o n . o r g / i n i t i a t i v e/ cr i m i n al -ju s t i ce / c r i me 13 -p re ve nti on/

publ ic -s af

ety -a sse ssm en t/ (l as t visi te d Janu ar y 6, 201 8) ( de sc ri bin g th e 14 purpos e and operation of the PSA and nam ing som e o f th e thirty -eight United States 15 j urisdictio ns that have im plem ented it). 16 { 41} A s ar es ult

of the 201 6 c onst itu tio na l r ef orm , ne ith er

our c ourts nor

our 17 com m uniti es are helpless to prevent relea se of provably dangerous offenders, a s was 18 the r ea lity unde r the old m one y -b as ed

sy ste m . I nst ea d, our

c ourts are auth or iz ed

now17

1 to m ake evidence-b as ed pretrial r elease and detentio n decisions that better protect 2 p ub l i c s a f

e t y a n dp r o v i d e f

o r amo r e f a i r p r e t r i a l j u s t i c e s ys t e m. 3 { 42} In li ne wit h t ho se refo rm s, t hi s C o u r t ha s al so am en de d R ul e 5 -4 03 NMRA, 4 Rule 6-403 NMRA , R

ule 7-403 NMRA , and Rule 8-403 N MRA to clearly authorize 5 al l c ri m ina l c ourts t o a m en d ade fe ndant’ s r el ea se c ondi tio n s o r r ev oke pr etri al r el ea se 6 en tir el y

f or co m m iss ionof

ne wc ri m es or

oth er vio la tio ns o f re le as e or de rs , w ith out 7 wa iting for a noncom

pliant defendant to endanger or victim ize som eone else. 8 { 43} T his c as e is a

goo d ex am

ple of the w isd om

of tho se c onst itu tio na l and c ourt9 ru le c hange s. T he re is no re as on in law or log ic that sh oul d c om

pe l our j udge s to do 10 the sa m e thi ngs ove r an d ov er a nd e xpe ct

dif fe re nt r es ult s. I n th is case, th ere is no 11 reason for a

court to believe that court-ordered re lease condition s would do any better 12 in c ontro lli ng De fe ndant’ s re pe at ed dange ro us c ondu ct than r el ea se c ondi tio ns h av e 13 done in the pa st. In fact , Def en dant h as de m onstrate d by he r ow n c ondu ct

that the 1 4 o p p o s i t e r e s u l ti s l i k e l y. 15 { 44} W e agre e w ith the Un i ted States Suprem e Court that under our Am erican 16 sy ste m

of j ust ic e “ lib er

ty is the nor

m , an d de te nti on pr ior to tri al or w ith out tr ia l i s th e 17 care fully

lim ited exception.” U

n i t e d St a t es v . S

a l e rno , 481 U

. S. 739 , 755 ( 1987 ) 18 (u phol din g th e fe de ra l de te nti on- fo r- dange ro usne ss sta tut e)

. Bu t i n th is c as e an d on18

1 thi s r ec or d th e dis tr ic t c ourt j ust if ia bly de te rm ined th at th is d ef

en dant h as e ar

ne d a 2 pla ce in tha t c ar ef

ull y li m ite d e xc ep tio n, not

a s punis hm en t f

or he r pa st a ct s bu t t o 3 pr ote ct oth er s f ro m he r pr ed ic ta

ble f uture dange ro usne ss. 4 III. CON CLU SION 5 { 45} A s w e s t a t e d i n o u r b e n c h r u l i n g f o l l o w i n g o r a l a r g u m e n t a nd i n a 6 conte m por an eo us wri tte n or de r, w e af fi rm the or de r of

the dis tr ic t c ourt de ny ing 7 pr etri al r el ea se to D ef

en dant unde r the ne w au tho ri ty in A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 13 of the 8 Ne w Me xico Const itutio n perm itting courts of rec ord to deny pretrial release byclear 9 an d c onvi nc ing e vid en ce tha t no re le as e co ndi tio ns w ill re as ona bly pr ote ct the sa fe ty 1 0 o f a n y o t h e r

p e r s o n o r

t h e c o mm

u n i t y. 11 { 46} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 13 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice 14 WE CO NCUR:

15

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 16 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice19

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 2 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

3

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 4 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 6 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice