This decision of the Supreme Court of New Mexico was not selected for publication in 

the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the 

citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computergenerated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Supreme Court.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

Filing Date: March 21, 2022

No. S-1-SC-38750

STATE OF NEW MEXICO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FRANCIS FAIR,

Defendant-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Brett R. Loveless, District Judge 

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Lauren Joseph Wolongevicz, Assistant Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

Bennett J. Bauer, Chief Public Defender

Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

PER CURIAM.

{1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on the State’s direct interlocutory 

appeal filed pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-3(B)(2) (1972), requesting that this 

Court reverse the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress 

statements made to police;

{2} WHEREAS, every member of the Court has considered the briefs and is fully 

informed on the issues and applicable law;
{3} WHEREAS, we review a motion to suppress as a mixed question of fact and law. 

State v. Widmer, 2020-NMSC-007, ¶ 11, 461 P.3d 881. This Court reviews the factual 

findings of the district court for substantial evidence, State v. Jason L., 2000-NMSC018, ¶ 10, 129 N.M. 119, 2 P.3d 856, viewing all facts in the light most favorable to the 

prevailing party, indulging all reasonable inferences in support of the ruling of the district 

court, and disregarding contrary inferences and evidence. Id. The application of the law 

to the facts is reviewed de novo. State v. Vandenberg, 2003-NMSC-030, ¶ 17, 134 N.M. 

566, 81 P.3d 19.

{4} WHEREAS, the question presented to the district court was whether Defendant 

was in custody such that a proper warning under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 

(1966) was necessary before interrogating him.

{5} WHEREAS, substantial evidence supported the district court’s findings that 

police handcuffed Defendant, told him he was being detained, that they were going to 

take his clothes, take pictures of him, and take him to the main police station to be 

processed, and then interrogated him in a police van for forty-seven minutes, beginning 

at approximately three a.m. after taking his clothes.

{6} WHEREAS, based on the facts found by the district court, we conclude 

Defendant was in custody at the time he was interrogated by police as a reasonable 

person would believe that he or she was not free to leave the scene and Defendant’s 

freedom of movement was “restrained to a degree associated with a formal arrest,” 

State v. Munoz, 1998-NMSC-048, ¶ 40, 126 N.M. 535, 972 P.2d 847, requiring that 

Defendant receive a proper Miranda warning prior to any interrogation. Miranda, 384 

U.S. at 479 (providing that police may not interrogate a person who has been taken into 

custody without a prior warning advising of a person’s rights).

{7} WHEREAS, the district court properly concluded that Defendant’s statements to 

police must be suppressed, as they were made while Defendant was in custody without 

having received a proper Miranda warning.

{8} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the district court, 

suppressing Defendant’s statements to police is affirmed and this matter is remanded to 

district court for further proceedings consistent with this order.

{9} IT IS SO ORDERED.

MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Chief Justice

C. SHANNON BACON, Justice

DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice

JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice

BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice