implied waiver in New Mexico

2014State v. 6 Herrera, 2014-NMCA-007, ¶ 4 , 315 P.3d 343 (stating that constitutional issues are 7 reviewed de novo). 8 {4} A defendant may waive his right to be present during critical stages of the 9 proceedings by either a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver” of his presence 10 “or as an implied waiver when a defendant has forfeited his . . . right to presence by 11 conduct.” Padilla, 2002-NMSC-016, ¶ 14 .

2003Padilla, 2002-NMSC-016, ¶ 14 , 132 N.M. 247 , 46 P.3d 1247 ; see also State v. Corriz, 86 N.M. 246, 248 , 522 P.2d 793, 795 (1974) (affirming waiver by conduct of the right to presence in court by capital defendant). {9} In this case, Defendant did not file a response to the State’s motion for the videotaped deposition.

2020Our Supreme Court’s stated purpose for the rule is “to effectuate a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial and to assure prompt disposition of criminal cases.” State v. Savedra, 2010-NMSC-025, ¶ 5 , 148 N.M. 301 , 236 P.3d 20 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {10} Defendant argues that her first appearance essentially operated as an implied waiver of arraignment, which should have triggered the rule.

2020Our Supreme Court’s stated purpose for the rule is “to effectuate a criminal defendant’s right to a speedy trial and to assure prompt disposition of criminal cases.” State v. Savedra, 2010-NMSC-025, ¶ 5 , 148 N.M. 301 , 236 P.3d 20 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {10} Defendant argues that her first appearance essentially operated as an implied waiver of arraignment, which should have triggered the rule.

2020“When construing our procedural rules, we use the same rules of construction applicable to the interpretation of statutes.” Allen v. LeMaster, 2012-NMSC-001, ¶ 11 , 267 P.3d 806 .

2020Nonetheless Defendant argues as she did in the proceedings below, that the rule was triggered by her first appearance, which “operate[d] as an implied waiver of arraignment[,]” and, based on that date, her case did not timely proceed to resolution as prescribed by the rule. {8} “We review de novo questions of law concerning the interpretation of [our] Supreme Court rules and the district court’s application of the law to the facts of the case.” State v. Sharp, 2012-NMCA-042, ¶ 5 , 276 P.3d 969 .

2018Defendant did not seek 15 to have the jury instructed that Nurse Belinski and Ms. Wood’s testimony 16 concerning HG’s statements to them should not be considered for the truth of the 17 matter asserted. 18 {9} A “defendant can waive fundamental rights,” including confrontation clause 19 rights, which “may include an implied waiver by conduct.” State v. Herrera, 2004- 20 NMCA-015, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 79 , 84 P.3d 696 ; see State v. Lucero, 1986-NMCA- 21 085, ¶¶ 12-17, 104 N.M. 587 , 725 P.2d 266 (determining that by failing to object 22 to challenged testimony on the basis of the confrontation clause

2018Defendant did not seek 15 to have the jury instructed that Nurse Belinski and Ms. Wood’s testimony 16 concerning HG’s statements to them should not be considered for the truth of the 17 matter asserted. 18 {9} A “defendant can waive fundamental rights,” including confrontation clause 19 rights, which “may include an implied waiver by conduct.” State v. Herrera, 2004- 20 NMCA-015, ¶ 8, 135 N.M. 79 , 84 P.3d 696 ; see State v. Lucero, 1986-NMCA- 21 085, ¶¶ 12-17, 104 N.M. 587 , 725 P.2d 266 (determining that by failing to object 22 to challenged testimony on the basis of the confrontation clause

2014State v. 6 Herrera, 2014-NMCA-007, ¶ 4 , 315 P.3d 343 (stating that constitutional issues are 7 reviewed de novo). 8 {4} A defendant may waive his right to be present during critical stages of the 9 proceedings by either a “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver” of his presence 10 “or as an implied waiver when a defendant has forfeited his . . . right to presence by 11 conduct.” Padilla, 2002-NMSC-016, ¶ 14 .

2012Id. at 797 , 568 P.2d at 1243 (quoting Bruce v. Gregory, 423 P.2d 193, 199 (Cal. 1967)). {15} Following Bruce and other cases, Newsome adopted an approach whereby courts determine whether records not specifically exempted by IPRA nonetheless should be withheld from the requester on the grounds that disclosure “would not be in the public interest.” 90 N.M. at 798 , 568 P.2d at 1244 .

2012Id. at 797 , 568 P.2d at 1243 (quoting Bruce v. Gregory, 423 P.2d 193, 199 (Cal. 1967)). {15} Following Bruce and other cases, Newsome adopted an approach whereby courts determine whether records not specifically exempted by IPRA nonetheless should be withheld from the requester on the grounds that disclosure “would not be in the public interest.” 90 N.M. at 798 , 568 P.2d at 1244 .

2004Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 .

2004Santa Clara Pueblo, 436 U.S. at 58 , 98 S.Ct. 1670 .

1991Id.

1991Id.

1982Finer v. Pender, 83 N.M. 502 , 494 P.2d 164 (1972).

1982Finer v. Pender, 83 N.M. 502 , 494 P.2d 164 (1972).

1977In Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 423 P.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of California held that the rights created by the California statutes to inspect public records “are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason.” Id. at 676 , 56 Cal.Rptr. at 271 , 423 P.2d at 199 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 (1960) (state bar records in disciplinary proceedings); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 156 , 238 P.2d 581 (1951) (communication in official confi

1977In Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 423 P.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of California held that the rights created by the California statutes to inspect public records “are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason.” Id. at 676 , 56 Cal.Rptr. at 271 , 423 P.2d at 199 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 (1960) (state bar records in disciplinary proceedings); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 156 , 238 P.2d 581 (1951) (communication in official confi

1977In Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 423 P.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of California held that the rights created by the California statutes to inspect public records “are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason.” Id. at 676 , 56 Cal.Rptr. at 271 , 423 P.2d at 199 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 (1960) (state bar records in disciplinary proceedings); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 156 , 238 P.2d 581 (1951) (communication in official confi

1977In Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 423 P.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of California held that the rights created by the California statutes to inspect public records “are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason.” Id. at 676 , 56 Cal.Rptr. at 271 , 423 P.2d at 199 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 (1960) (state bar records in disciplinary proceedings); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 156 , 238 P.2d 581 (1951) (communication in official confi

1977In Craemer v. Superior Court in and for Marin County, 265 Cal.App.2d 216 , 71 Cal.Rptr. 193 (1968), the court called attention to the numerous California cases that had passed on this question, and to the California statute, which provides that every citizen has the right of inspection “except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” That court stated the rule to be: [Wjhere there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.

1977In Craemer v. Superior Court in and for Marin County, 265 Cal.App.2d 216 , 71 Cal.Rptr. 193 (1968), the court called attention to the numerous California cases that had passed on this question, and to the California statute, which provides that every citizen has the right of inspection “except as otherwise expressly provided by statute.” That court stated the rule to be: [Wjhere there is no contrary statute or countervailing public policy, the right to inspect public records must be freely allowed.

1977In Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 423 P.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of California held that the rights created by the California statutes to inspect public records “are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason.” Id. at 676 , 56 Cal.Rptr. at 271 , 423 P.2d at 199 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 (1960) (state bar records in disciplinary proceedings); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 156 , 238 P.2d 581 (1951) (communication in official confi

1977In Bruce v. Gregory, 65 Cal.2d 666 , 56 Cal.Rptr. 265 , 423 P.2d 193 (1967), the Supreme Court of California held that the rights created by the California statutes to inspect public records “are, by their very nature, not absolute, but are subject to an implied rule of reason.” Id. at 676 , 56 Cal.Rptr. at 271 , 423 P.2d at 199 ; Chronicle Publishing Co. v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.2d 548 , 7 Cal.Rptr. 109 , 354 P.2d 637 (1960) (state bar records in disciplinary proceedings); City and County of San Francisco v. Superior Court, 38 Cal.2d 156 , 238 P.2d 581 (1951) (communication in official confi

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 , 59 S.Ct. 595 , 83 L.Ed. 927 (1939), which involved the question of the imposition of a state income tax on the salary of an employee of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, the court stated: "* * * The theory of the tax immunity of either government, state or national, and its instrumentalities, from taxation by the other, has been rested upon an implied limitation on the taxing power of each, such as to forestall undue interference, through the exercise of that power, with the governmental activities of the other. * * * "* * * "* * * the implied immunity of one governmen

1969O'Keefe, 306 U.S. 466 , 59 S.Ct. 595 , 83 L.Ed. 927 (1939), which involved the question of the imposition of a state income tax on the salary of an employee of the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, the court stated: "* * * The theory of the tax immunity of either government, state or national, and its instrumentalities, from taxation by the other, has been rested upon an implied limitation on the taxing power of each, such as to forestall undue interference, through the exercise of that power, with the governmental activities of the other. * * * "* * * "* * * the implied immunity of one governmen

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1969For the expansion of the immunity of the one government correspondingly curtails the sovereign power of the other to tax, and where that immunity is invoked by the private citizen it tends to operate for his benefit at the expense of the taxing government and without corresponding benefit to the government in whose name the immunity is claimed. * * *" In Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Texas Co., 336 U.S. 342 , 69 S.Ct. 561 , 93 L.Ed. 721 (1949), which involved the question of immunity from state taxation of petroleum produced on Indian lands, the court stated: "It is true that this Court's more re

1966In Jones v. Carver, 29 Tex.Civ.App. 268 , 67 S.W. 780 , an election was held to determine if certain animals should be allowed to run at large.

1966In Jones v. Carver, 29 Tex.Civ.App. 268 , 67 S.W. 780 , an election was held to determine if certain animals should be allowed to run at large.

1953Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103 , 255 P.2d 311 ; Yates v. American Republics Corp., 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 178 ; 1 Simes Future Interests 307, Section 170.

1953Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103 , 255 P.2d 311 ; Yates v. American Republics Corp., 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 178 ; 1 Simes Future Interests 307, Section 170.

1953Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103 , 255 P.2d 311 ; Yates v. American Republics Corp., 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 178 ; 1 Simes Future Interests 307, Section 170.

1953Pratt v. Parker, 57 N.M. 103 , 255 P.2d 311 ; Yates v. American Republics Corp., 10 Cir., 163 F.2d 178 ; 1 Simes Future Interests 307, Section 170.