Notwithstanding the provisions of any other rule, a party may file with any opposed motion a brief or supporting points with citations or authorities. Affidavits, statements, depositions, or other documentary evidence in support of the motion may be filed with the motion.
N.M. R. Mun. Ct. P. 8-304
Committee commentary. - Although Paragraph E does not require a written response to every motion, a court may order a party to file a written response to a motion. Alternatively, to facilitate docket and case management, courts are encouraged to issue scheduling orders with specific deadlines for written motions and responses. To the extent of any conflict, the deadlines in a court order supersede the deadlines in this rule.
A motion to suppress evidence under Paragraph F of this rule may be used to suppress or exclude evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure or obtained in violation of any constitutional right. See, e.g., State v. Harrison, 1970-NMCA-025, 81 N.M. 324, 466 P.2d 890 (motion to exclude lineup identification).
In 2017, the committee moved the suppression provisions from Paragraph B to Paragraph F of this rule and added new time deadlines for motions to suppress and for responses. If a party cannot meet the time deadline for filing either a motion to suppress or a response, the party may ask the court, in its discretion, to grant a time extension under Rule 8-104(B) NMRA, a continuance under Rule 8-601(A) NMRA, or an extension of the time for commencement of trial under Rule 8-506(C) NMRA.
The paragraph addressing suppression motions previously was amended in 2013 in response to City of Santa Fe v. Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, 285 P.3d 637. Marquez held that, absent good cause shown, motions to suppress must be filed prior to trial and suppression issues must be adjudicated prior to trial in order to preserve the state's right to appeal any order suppressing evidence. Id. ¶ 28; see Rule 5-212(C) NMRA and committee commentary. Prior to the entry of a final judgment in municipal court, the prosecution may obtain judicial review of an order suppressing evidence by dismissing the charges and reinstating the charges in district court. See State v. Heinsen, 2005-NMSC-035, ¶¶ 1, 23, 25, 28, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040; see also Rule 8-506.1 NMRA. But if the municipal court enters an order at trial suppressing evidence and concludes that any remaining evidence is insufficient to proceed against the defendant, the defendant is acquitted, and the defendant's double jeopardy rights preclude the municipality from appealing. See Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, ¶ 16; State v. Lizzol, 2007-NMSC-024, ¶ 15, 41 N.M. 705, 160 P.3d 886. Adjudicating suppression issues prior to trial ensures that the municipality will be able to exercise its right to appeal any order suppressing evidence.
If a defendant raises a suppression issue at trial, the trial judge may order a continuance under Rule 8-601(A) in order to ascertain whether there is good cause for the defendant's failure to raise the issue prior to trial. See Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, ¶ 16. Examples of good cause may include, but are not limited to, failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence relevant to the motion to suppress to the defense prior to trial, failure of either party to provide discovery, or the discovery of allegedly suppressable evidence during the course of the trial. If good cause is shown, the judge may excuse the late motion and hold a suppression hearing. Absent good cause shown, the judge may deny the motion for failure to comply with the rule.
Paragraph G was added in 2019 to affirmatively provide for motions to reconsider, which have long been recognized in common law though not in our rules. See State v. Suskiewich, 2014-NMSC-040, ¶ 12, 339 P.3d 614 (?Although our procedural rules do not grant the State an express right to file a motion to reconsider a suppression order, the common law has long recognized the validity and utility of motions to reconsider in criminal cases.?). Consistent with Rule 12-201 NMRA, a motion to reconsider filed within the permissible time period for initiating an appeal will toll the time to file an appeal until the motion has been expressly disposed of or withdrawn.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-044, effective for all cases filed or pending on or after December 31, 2013; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-016, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2017; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 19-8300-018, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2019.]
ANNOTATIONS The 2017 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-016, effective December 31, 2017, rewrote the section related to suppression of evidence, made technical revisions, and revised the committee commentary; deleted former Paragraph B, which related to suppression of evidence, and redesignated former Paragraphs C through F as Paragraphs B through E, respectively; in Paragraph B, changed the heading from "Motions and other papers" to "Motion requirements"; in Paragraph C, after "opposing", deleted "counsel" and added "party"; in Paragraph D, after each occurrence of "opposing", deleted "counsel" and added "party"; in Paragraph E, after "in these rules", deleted "any" and added "or by order of the court, if a party wants to file a written response to a motion, the", and after "shall be filed", added "and served"; and added a new Paragraph F. The 2013 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 13-8300-044, effective December 31, 2013, required that motions to suppress be filed and determined prior to trial; and added Subparagraph (2) of Paragraph B. The 2006 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 06-8300-037, effective March 1, 2007, deleted former Paragraph B providing motions may be written or oral; deleted former Paragraph D relating to notice of hearings; relettered former Paragraph C as Paragraph B and added Paragraphs C through E to conform this rule with Rule 5-120 NMRA. The 1990 amendment, effective for cases filed in the municipal courts on or after September 1, 1990, inserted "before trial" near the end of Paragraph A; deleted the second and third sentences of Paragraph B, relating to supporting or opposing briefs or affidavits; and deleted former Paragraphs C through F and redesignated former Paragraphs G and H as present Paragraphs C and D, respectively.
For comparable district court rule, see Rule 5-120 NMRA.