State of New Mexico v. Matthew Wayne Hague

Santa Fe, NM - Criminal defense attorney represented MATTHEW WAYNE HAGUE with a revocation of

his probation.

We will begin with the motion to amend, by which Defendant seeks to

9 challenge the district court's reliance upon his own out-of-court admission to

10 committing the offense of shoplifting. [MIO 5-9] Although we find no indication

11 that Defendant objected, [MIO 6] we understand him to suggest that the district court

12 should have excluded it, sua sponte, as unreliable hearsay. [MIO 6-9] However, a

13 statement is not hearsay when it is offered against a party and is the party's own

14 admission. See Rule 11-801(D)(2)(a) NMRA (excluding admissions by a party15 opponent from the hearsay rule); see, e.g., State v. Smith, 2001-NMSC-004, ¶¶ 17-

16 18, 130 N.M. 117, 19 P.3d 254 (concluding that a police officer's testimony about

17 the defendant's own statements was properly admitted under Rule 11-801(D)(2)(a);

18 and further, the admission of such evidence did not implicate the defendant's right

1 Because Defendant's appeals raise identical issues, we exercise our

discretion to consolidate them for decision. See Rule 12-317(B) NMRA (allowing

an appellate court to consolidate appeals for decision).

3

1 of confrontation). We therefore perceive no merit to the suggestion of error.

2 Accordingly, we deny the motion to amend on the ground that the putative issue is

3 not viable. See generally State v. Sommer, 1994-NMCA-070, ¶ 11, 118 N.M. 58,

4 878 P.2d 1007 (observing parenthetically, in relation to motions to amend docketing

5 statements, that issues must be viable).

6 {3} Defendant also renews his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to

7 support the district court's determination that he committed a violation. [DS 10-12]

8 However, as described in the notices of proposed summary disposition, the State

9 presented ample evidence in support of the petition to revoke. [CN 2-4] Although

10 Defendant continues to argue that the district court's reliance upon hearsay was

11 improper, [MIO 10-12] we remain unpersuaded. As we previously observed, [CN 3]

12 "hearsay may be considered in probation revocation hearings if of probative

13 value[.]” State v. Vigil, 1982-NMCA-058, ¶ 19, 97 N.M. 749, 643 P.2d 618 (internal

14 quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Neal, 2007-NMCA-086,

15 ¶ 41, 142 N.M. 487, 167 P.3d 935 ("[H]earsay evidence may be used in probation

16 revocation hearings if it has probative value.”). In this case the State's evidence was

17 of substantial probative value, particularly in light of the fact that the investigating

18 officer was called as a witness at the probation revocation proceeding and was

19 therefore subject to cross-examination. See generally State v. Guthrie, 2011-NMSC20 014, ¶ 36, 150 N.M. 84, 257 P.3d 904 (observing that "an allegation that the

4

1 probationer has committed another crime must be tested in the crucible of cross2 examination”); Vigil, 1982-NMCA-058, ¶¶ 18, 22-24 (explaining that the absence

3 of opportunity to test hearsay for accuracy or reliability, through cross-examination

4 or otherwise, tends to deprive that evidence of probative value).

5 {4} Defendant suggests that Vigil would support a different result. [MIO 11]

6 However, unlike Vigil, this is not a case in which the State relied exclusively upon

7 hearsay evidence. See generally Neal, 2007-NMCA-086, ¶ 42 (observing that Vigil

8 "addresses only whether hearsay evidence was sufficient when no non-hearsay

9 evidence was presented”). As noted above, Defendant's admission constitutes non10 hearsay. See Rule 11-801(D)(2)(a). And as we previously observed, [CN 3-4] the

11 testifying officer described his own perceptions, and events within his personal

12 knowledge. See State v. Gwynne, 2018-NMCA-033, ¶¶ 7, 28-33, 417 P.3d 1157

13 (holding that an investigating officer was properly permitted to describe the personal

14 observations he made from watching video recordings, to explain how he concluded

15 that the defendant was the perpetrator); State v. Sweat, 2017-NMCA-069, ¶¶ 20-24,

16 404 P.3d 20 (holding that an investigating officer was properly permitted to testify

17 as to the defendant's identity as the perpetrator of an offense captured on surveillance

18 video and subsequently viewed by the officer); Neal, 2007-NMCA-086, ¶ 42

19 (holding that the testimony of an officer who testified that he saw the defendant

5

1 shoplift constituted non-hearsay evidence, where the defendant was able to cross2 examine the officer). We therefore remain unpersuaded.

3 {5} Finally, Defendant contends that the district court's ultimate ruling was

4 premised on "contradictory evidentiary rulings.” [MIO 11-12] The various positions

5 apparently taken by the district court on evidentiary matters pertaining to the

6 officer's description of the course of the investigation, including his personal

7 perceptions based upon his viewing of the surveillance video and his subsequent

8 interaction with Defendant, [MIO 3-5] are somewhat mystifying. See generally Rule

9 11-1101(D)(3)(d) NMRA (stating that the rules of evidence do not apply to

10 proceedings to revoke probation). However, any error appears to have entailed the

11 exclusion of evidence, which would have redounded to Defendant's benefit. Despite

12 this, the district court clearly manifested its determination that the State had

13 sustained its burden of demonstrating that Defendant had committed the offense of

14 shoplifting. As previously described, the evidence amply supports that result. We

15 therefore perceive no basis for relief on appeal. See generally Neal, 2007-NMCA16 086, ¶ 42 (explaining, in the context of a probation revocation proceeding, that in

17 order to establish a violation of due process, a defendant must show prejudice); City

18 of Roswell v. Smith, 2006-NMCA-040, 139 N.M. 381, 133 P.3d 271 ("We will affirm

19 a ruling of the district court that reaches the correct result, even if it is for the wrong

6

1 reason, when the district court had all the facts before it and the parties had a full

2 opportunity to present evidence.”).

Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notices of proposed summary disposition and above, we affirm.