High court promises guidance on bail denials

State has seen disparate decisions since voters OK’d constitutional amendment

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would provide lower courts with a written opinion to clarify a state constitutional amendment that allows judges to deny bail to defendants if they are found to be dangerous.

“It’s going to take a while to learn a new way of doing things in New Mexico,” Chief Justice Charles Daniels said after announcing disparate decisions in three cases of violent crimes in which defendants were either denied bail or granted the possibility of going free until trial.

Prosecutors and a public defender challenged lower-court rulings that went against them on whether bail should be granted to a defendant, prompting the high court to review the three cases. All the challenges sprang from a state constitutional amendment, approved by voters in November, that allows judges to keep a defendant in jail without bail if prosecutors can present clear and convincing evidence that the accused is a danger and that no conditions of release would be sufficient to protect the community.

The Supreme Court’s rulings mean Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez will get another chance to persuade a judge that defendants in two cases — a man accused of dozens of armed robberies and another man charged with shooting his pregnant girlfriend — should be held without bail.

In a third case, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal by a public defender representing an Albuquerque woman who another judge found dangerous enough to jail with no bail until her trial. That defendant, Elexus Groves, was charged with murder after she allegedly stole a van and crashed it into a car, killing a teenage girl and her mother.

“I think this was exactly what we were looking for,” Torrez said after the hearing. “There’s bound to be some growing pains in setting up proper standards.”

Torrez, elected in November, said that he’s asked judges to deny bail for 70 to 80 defendants since taking office. He said judges have approved 20 to 30 of those motions.

Two of those cases went before the Supreme Court on Wednesday. Paul Salas, who Torrez said confessed to 47 armed robberies in a five-month stretch, is the defendant in one. In the other, Mauralon Harper, also known as Kevin Smith, is charged with attempted murder and other felonies. Torrez said Harper shot his pregnant girlfriend in the stomach during an argument at her apartment last month.

State District Judge Stan Whitaker of Albuquerque in both cases denied prosecution motions to hold the defendants without bail. The judge said Torrez’s prosecutors didn’t meet their burden in proving that the defendants were too dangerous to qualify for bail.

And each time the judge criticized prosecutors for not bringing in witnesses to back up the evidence they introduced. Torrez argued that requiring the appearance of witnesses, such as police investigators, would be a strain on law enforcement. He said it would hurt police investigations if detectives were called in from the field for “mini-trials.”

Daniels announced the court’s decision that prosecutors will get new bail hearings in the robbery and shooting cases. He said there is no rule that witnesses have to testify at bond hearings or that witnesses are prohibited from being called.

Albuquerque lawyer Jerry Todd Wertheim, who represented Judge Whitaker before the Supreme Court, said the decision was not a repudiation of Whitaker’s orders. “The courts need more guidance,” Wertheim said.

Although Whitaker denied prosecution motions to prohibit bail, both defendants are still behind bars.

The judge set Harper’s bond at $100,000, but he faces the possibility of no bail in another criminal case. Salas is being held in a related federal case.

In Groves’ case, Daniels said, the Supreme Court unanimously decided there was clear and convincing evidence that she is a danger. The court found that state District Judge Brent Loveless did not abuse his discretion by denying her bond.

A spokesman for the state Attorney General Hector Balderas, whose office defended Loveless’ action, said Balderas was gratified that courts across the state will receive receive guidance on “an effective tool to keep dangerous defendants off of the streets” while awaiting trial.