arrest violation in New Mexico

2009To answer that question “requires an analysis of whether the unlawful custodial arrest violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article II, Section 10 of our State Constitution.” Id. {29} In Bncker, the State argued that “an arrest in violation of a statute does not elevate the issue to a constitutional level.” Id. ¶ 19 (citing People v. Lyon, 227 Mich.App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) for the proposition that the exclusionary rule is only compelled by the Fourth Amendment if the seizure was constitutionally invalid, based on a lack of probable cause, and not mere

2009To answer that question “requires an analysis of whether the unlawful custodial arrest violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article II, Section 10 of our State Constitution.” Id. {29} In Bncker, the State argued that “an arrest in violation of a statute does not elevate the issue to a constitutional level.” Id. ¶ 19 (citing People v. Lyon, 227 Mich.App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) for the proposition that the exclusionary rule is only compelled by the Fourth Amendment if the seizure was constitutionally invalid, based on a lack of probable cause, and not mere

2020See State v. Weidner, 2007- NMCA-063, ¶ 18, 141 N.M. 582 , 158 P.3d 1025 (stating that the search incident to an arrest exception requires the state to prove that “the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2020See State v. Weidner, 2007- NMCA-063, ¶ 18, 141 N.M. 582 , 158 P.3d 1025 (stating that the search incident to an arrest exception requires the state to prove that “the search occurs as a contemporaneous incident to the lawful arrest of the defendant and is confined to the area within the defendant’s immediate control” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2019See State v. Gonzales, 1990-NMCA-040 , ¶ 48, 110 N.M. 218 , 794 P.2d 361 (“[M]emorandum opinions are not meant to be cited as controlling authority because such opinions are written solely for the benefit of the parties.”). {19} Defendant’s remaining arguments are premised on the arrest clause being the equivalent of an arrest warrant.

2019See State v. Gonzales, 1990-NMCA-040 , ¶ 48, 110 N.M. 218 , 794 P.2d 361 (“[M]emorandum opinions are not meant to be cited as controlling authority because such opinions are written solely for the benefit of the parties.”). {19} Defendant’s remaining arguments are premised on the arrest clause being the equivalent of an arrest warrant.

2015Citizen’s Arrest 10 {11} Relying on State v. Johnson, Defendant argues that we must reverse his 11 conviction for kidnapping because the district court did not submit an instruction on 12 citizen’s arrest to the jury. 1996-NMSC-075, ¶¶ 19-20 , 122 N.M. 696 , 930 P.2d 1148 . 13 Citing State v. Slayton, the State counters, in part, that “citizen’s arrest was not a 14 legally valid defense because ‘citizens’ arrests for DWI are not legal.’ ” 2009-NMSC- 15 054, ¶ 26, 147 N.M. 340 , 223 P.3d 337 . 16 {12} “The citizen’s arrest defense is based on a person’s common-law right to arrest 17 for a breac

2015Citizen’s Arrest 10 {11} Relying on State v. Johnson, Defendant argues that we must reverse his 11 conviction for kidnapping because the district court did not submit an instruction on 12 citizen’s arrest to the jury. 1996-NMSC-075, ¶¶ 19-20 , 122 N.M. 696 , 930 P.2d 1148 . 13 Citing State v. Slayton, the State counters, in part, that “citizen’s arrest was not a 14 legally valid defense because ‘citizens’ arrests for DWI are not legal.’ ” 2009-NMSC- 15 054, ¶ 26, 147 N.M. 340 , 223 P.3d 337 . 16 {12} “The citizen’s arrest defense is based on a person’s common-law right to arrest 17 for a breac

2013Thus, 17 a citizen’s arrest instruction would have been cumulative of the false imprisonment 18 instruction. 12 1 {24} “The [district] court need not . . . offer duplicate instructions if the instructions 2 given adequately apprise the jury of the controlling law.” State v. Bunce, 116 N.M. 3 284, 287, 861 P.2d 965, 968 (1993); see State v. Nozie, 2007-NMCA-131, ¶ 11 , 142 4 N.M. 626 , 168 P.3d 756 . 5 Issue 5: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 6 A. Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request a Citizen’s Arrest Jury Instruction 7 {25} Defendant argues that he was provided ineffective assistance of cou

2013Thus, 17 a citizen’s arrest instruction would have been cumulative of the false imprisonment 18 instruction. 12 1 {24} “The [district] court need not . . . offer duplicate instructions if the instructions 2 given adequately apprise the jury of the controlling law.” State v. Bunce, 116 N.M. 3 284, 287, 861 P.2d 965, 968 (1993); see State v. Nozie, 2007-NMCA-131, ¶ 11 , 142 4 N.M. 626 , 168 P.3d 756 . 5 Issue 5: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 6 A. Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request a Citizen’s Arrest Jury Instruction 7 {25} Defendant argues that he was provided ineffective assistance of cou

2013Thus, 17 a citizen’s arrest instruction would have been cumulative of the false imprisonment 18 instruction. 12 1 {24} “The [district] court need not . . . offer duplicate instructions if the instructions 2 given adequately apprise the jury of the controlling law.” State v. Bunce, 116 N.M. 3 284, 287, 861 P.2d 965, 968 (1993); see State v. Nozie, 2007-NMCA-131, ¶ 11 , 142 4 N.M. 626 , 168 P.3d 756 . 5 Issue 5: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel 6 A. Defense Counsel’s Failure to Request a Citizen’s Arrest Jury Instruction 7 {25} Defendant argues that he was provided ineffective assistance of cou

2009See State v. Marshall, 2004-NMCA-104, ¶ 7 , 136 N.M. 240 , 96 P.3d 801 11 (providing that we implement the intent of the Legislature by “giving effect to the 12 plain meaning of the words of statute, unless this leads to an absurd or unreasonable 13 result”). 14 We lastly decline to address Defendant’s argument that UJI 14-2223 NMRA, 15 which provides generally that a defendant be arrested “under authority of a warrant,” 16 is deficient because it does not specify that the warrant be for a felony, as required by 17 Section 30-22-10. [RP 27-28; DS 4, 6; MIO 7-8] Significantly, no UJI was given

2009See State v. Marshall, 2004-NMCA-104, ¶ 7 , 136 N.M. 240 , 96 P.3d 801 11 (providing that we implement the intent of the Legislature by “giving effect to the 12 plain meaning of the words of statute, unless this leads to an absurd or unreasonable 13 result”). 14 We lastly decline to address Defendant’s argument that UJI 14-2223 NMRA, 15 which provides generally that a defendant be arrested “under authority of a warrant,” 16 is deficient because it does not specify that the warrant be for a felony, as required by 17 Section 30-22-10. [RP 27-28; DS 4, 6; MIO 7-8] Significantly, no UJI was given

2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti

2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti

2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti

2006See People v. Lyon, 227 Mich. App. 599 , 577 N.W.2d 124, 129 (1998) (hold that the exclusionary rule is “only applicable ... if the seizure was constitutionally invalid,” based on a lack of probable cause, and “not merely statutorily illegal”); State v. Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556 , 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-09 (1973) (holding evidence obtained following arrest which is constitutionally valid as based on probable cause but unlawful under state law need not be excluded under the federal exclusionary rule); Penn v. Commonwealth, 13 Va.App. 399 , 412 S.E.2d 189, 193-94 (1991) (holding that there is no consti

1996THE DEFENSE OF CITIZEN’S ARREST IN A CRIMINAL ACTION FOR ASSAULT 7 The citizen’s arrest defense is based on a person’s common-law right to “arrest for a breach of the peace conunitted in his presence, as well as for a felony.” Downs v. Garay, 106 N.M. 321, 323 , 742 P.2d 533, 535 (Ct.App.1987).

1996THE DEFENSE OF CITIZEN’S ARREST IN A CRIMINAL ACTION FOR ASSAULT 7 The citizen’s arrest defense is based on a person’s common-law right to “arrest for a breach of the peace conunitted in his presence, as well as for a felony.” Downs v. Garay, 106 N.M. 321, 323 , 742 P.2d 533, 535 (Ct.App.1987).