N.M. R. Child. Ct. 10-261
N.M. R. Child. Ct. 10-261
Committee commentary. - The Supreme Court has approved Form 10-719 NMRA as the Probation Order and Agreement that must be used under Paragraph A of this rule.
[Approved by Supreme Court Order No. 18-8300-011, effective for all cases filed on or after December 31, 2018.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2018 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 18-8300-011, effective December 31, 2018, provided that an order placing a child on probation shall be substantially in the form approved by the supreme court, and added the committee commentary; in Paragraph A, added the last sentence of the paragraph. The 1999 amendment, effective August 1, 1999, added Paragraphs A and B, redesignated former Paragraph A as Paragraph C, and in the introductory language of that paragraph deleted "or need of supervision" at the end of the first sentence, and in the second sentence substituted "child" for "respondent" twice and deleted "or in need of supervision" preceding "is entitled to"; and deleted former Paragraph B relating to disposition. Recompilations. - Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-042, Rule 10-232 NMRA was recompiled as Rule 10-261 NMRA, effective January 15, 2009.
Cross references. - For establishment of probation services, see Section 32A-2-5 NMSA 1978. For powers and duties of probation officers under Children's Code, see Section 32A-2-5 NMSA 1978. For probation and parole revocation, see Sections 32A-2-24 and 32A-2-25 NMSA 1978. Where a special master lacks authority to hear a probation revocation petition, the court is without jurisdiction at the hearing on the petition. When the district judge disposes of the case more than 30 days after the petition is filed, the petition should be dismissed with prejudice. State v. Doe, 1979-NMCA-126, 93 N.M. 621, 603 P.2d 731. Juveniles entitled to confront witnesses during revocation proceedings. - A child whose probation is sought to be revoked shall be entitled to all the rights a child alleged to be delinquent is entitled to under the law, and since juveniles have the right to confront witnesses during delinquency proceedings, they must be accorded that right in probation revocation proceedings. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. Analysis of right to confrontation. - The right to confrontation provided by this section is the same right guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and consequently, the analysis of an alleged violation of this right is the same, and as in the analysis of the Sixth Amendment right, this right is not absolute, and deviation from live, face-to-face testimony may be permitted when an exception is necessary to further an important public policy, such exception being supported by a particularized showing of necessity by the district court. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. Child's right to confront witnesses violated. - Where State's witness, who could not attend the proceedings on the day of the hearing, testified by telephone over the Child's objections, and where the district court failed to make any findings on the necessity of telephonic testimony, the Child's right to confront witnesses against him was violated. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. New trial required only if violation of right is harmful. - A violation of the right to confrontation alone does not require a new trial, but only when a violation of the confrontation right is harmful to the defendant does the violation require a new trial, and the burden is on the State to show the violation was harmless. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. State failed to meet its burden. - Where State failed to address whether any violation of the child's right to confrontation was harmless, the State failed to meet its burden, and therefore the child was entitled to a new probation revocation proceeding. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. Proof of a probation violation. - To establish a violation of a probation agreement, the obligation is on the state to prove willful conduct on the part of the probationer. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. Insufficient evidence to support willful conduct. - Where child was discharged from an out-of-home placement, such placement being a condition of probation, and where all of the testimony by the juvenile probation officer and the social worker was improperly admitted in a juvenile probation revocation proceeding, the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of willful conduct on the part of the child. State v. Trevor M., 2015-NMCA-009. Applicability of Rules of Evidence. - The Rules of Evidence apply to the adjudicatory phase of juvenile probation revocation proceedings; however, they do not apply to the dispositional phase. State v. Erickson K., 2002-NMCA-058, 132 N.M. 258, 46 P.3d 1258, cert. quashed, 132 N.M. 732, 55 P.3d 428. Law reviews. - For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases Under the New Rules," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. - 47 Am. Jur. 2d Juvenile Courts §25 et seq. 43 C.J.S. Infants § 78.