Court Opinion

ID: 9552498
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 19:12:05.07941+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:27:37.809424
License: Public Domain

HERNANDEZ, Judge (specially concurring). Rule 13 of the Children’s Court Rules provides: “All pre-adjudicatory motions shall be filed: (a) within 10 days from the date the petition is filed or within 10 days from the appointment of counsel for the respondent or entry of appearance by counsel for the respondent, whichever is later, if the respondent is in detention or the alleged neglected child is in the custody of the department; or (b) in all other cases, within 20 days from the date the petition is filed or within 20 days from the appointment of counsel for the respondent or entry of appearance by counsel for the respondent whichever is later.” Rule 18(b) and (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provide: “(b) A person aggrieved by a confession, admission or other evidence may move to suppress such evidence. (c) A motion to suppress shall be made within twenty days after entry of a plea, unless, upon good cause shown, the trial court waives the time requirement of the rule." [Emphasis added.] Rule 33(e) and (f) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides: “(e) The following defenses or objections must be raised prior to trial: (1) defenses and objections based on defects in the initiation of the prosecution, or (2) defenses and objections based on defects in the complaint, indictment or information other than a failure to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense, which objections shall be noticed by the court at anytime during the pend-ency of the proceeding. Failure to present any such defense or objection, other than the failure to show jurisdiction or charge an offense, constitutes a waiver thereof, but the court for cause shown may grant relief from the waiver. If any such objection or defense is sustained and is not otherwise remediable, the court shall order the complaint, indictment or information dismissed. (f) All motions, unless otherwise provided by these rules or unless otherwise ordered by the court, shall be made at the arraignment or within twenty days thereafter, unless upon good cause shown the court waives the.time requirement. [Emphasis added.] Implicit in Rule 13, supra, are the two exceptions made explicit in Rule 33, supra, to-wit: “failure to show jurisdiction in the court or to charge an offense.” That is all pre-adjudicatory motions except those alleging lack of jurisdiction and failure to charge an offense must be made within the time limits prescribed in Rule 13, failure to do so shall constitute a waiver by defendant thereof. There being no provision for a waiver of the time requirement by the court. The Rules of Criminal Procedure were promulgated by the Supreme Court on May 3, 1972, with an effective date of July 1, 1972. The Children’s Court Rules were promulgated by the Supreme Court on January 14, 1976, with an effective date of April 1, 1976. So it can reasonably be inferred that the omission of a time waiver provision by the court in Rule 13 of the Children’s Court Rules was deliberate. This inference is further supported when one notes the very short time provisions of the Children’s Court Rules. Considering that the purpose of rules such as these is to prevent the interjection of collateral issues into a trial or hearing and to prevent the prolongation of such proceedings by interruptions to consider questions and issues that could easily be considered prior to trial or hearing. And as we stated in State v. Helker, supra, “rules of criminal procedure can put a time limitation on the exercise of a constitutionally protected right.” I concur in the majority opinion to reverse for the following reason only. The defendant’s third point of error was that the trial court abused its discretion in not allowing him to cross-examine the doctor as to the results of the laboratory culture test which was negative as to gonorrhea. This is not quite accurate. The defendant was allowed to cross-examine the doctor about the laboratory culture test and elicited the answer that the results of that test were negative as to gonorrhea. The State objected and requested that the answer be stricken as hearsay. The motion was granted and the jury instructed to disregard the answer. It is my opinion that the trial court erred in doing this. It must be mentioned that the State had qualified the doctor as an expert in the diagnosis of this venereal disease. Considerable latitude should be allowed in the cross-examination of expert witnesses for the purpose of testing knowledge, judgment and bias. Elsea v. Broome Furniture Co., 47 N.M. 356, 143 P.2d 572 (1943). Rule 705, N.M.R.Evid. provides: “The expert may testify in terms of opinion or inference and give his reasons therefor without prior disclosure of the underlying facts or data, unless the judge requires otherwise. The expert may in any event be required to disclose the underlying facts or data on cross-examination. [Emphasis added.] The trial court also erred in striking the answer because it was hearsay. Our Supreme Court in State v. Chambers, 84 N.M. 309, 502 P.2d 999 (1972), adopted the following from Brown v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 134, 142, 375 F.2d 310, 318 (1967): “In forming an expert opinion it may be necessary to rely upon information— hearsay though it be * * * . The information is winnowed through the mental processes of the expert, and is by him either accepted or rejected.” The Supreme Court in Chambers also quot.ed the following with approval from Jenkins v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 304, 307 F.2d 637, 641 (1962): “ * * * the better reasoned authorities admit opinion testimony based, in part, upon reports of others which are not in evidence but which the expert customarily relies upon in the practice of his profession.” Rule 703, N.M.R.Evid. provides: “The facts or data in the particular case upon which an expert bases an opinion or inference may be those perceived by or made known to him at or before the hearing. If of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or inferences upon the subject, the facts or data need not be admissible in evidence.” [Emphasis added.]