Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Notes to Decisions
Incarceration of innocent person.
Medical care was not cruel and unusual.
Aggravating factors.
State failed to show sufficient evidence to support the finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance under 31-20A-4C(1) NMSA 1978 and U.S. Const. amends. VIII, specifically the murder of a witness pursuant to 31-20A-5G NMSA 1978, to proceed with death penalty charges against defendant after he killed his son because he thought his son had become possessed by the devil. The State failed to show that defendant believed he had falsely imprisoned his son and that he killed his son to prevent him from reporting the false imprisonment and defendant’s prior use of controlled substances. State v. Smith, 1997-NMSC-017, 123 N.M. 52, 933 P.2d 851, 1997 N.M. LEXIS 17 (N.M. 1997).
Appeal.
Defendant could not properly raise on direct appeal the issue whether the trial court set an excessively high appeal bond; a person seeking relief from a claimed excessive bond was to file a motion in the court pursuant to 21-2-1(9)(1), 1953 Comp. (now Rule LR3-406 NMRA). State v. Cebada, 1972-NMCA-140, 84 N.M. 306, 502 P.2d 409, 1972 N.M. App. LEXIS 860 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
Appeal bond.
Defendant convicted of burglary in violation of 40A-16-3, 1953 Comp. (now 30-16-3 NMSA 1978) and larceny in violation of 40A-16-1, 1953 Comp. (now 30-16-1 NMSA 1978) could not properly raise on direct appeal the issue whether the trial court set an excessively high appeal bond in violation of U.S. Const. amends. VIII, N.M. Const. art II § 13, former 41-15-2B, 1953 Comp. (now 31-11-1 NMSA 1978), and former 21-2-1(9)(4), 1953 Comp.; defendant should have filed a motion with the court pursuant to former 21-2-1(9)(1), 1953 Comp. State v. Cebada, 1972-NMCA-140, 84 N.M. 306, 502 P.2d 409, 1972 N.M. App. LEXIS 860 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
Cruel and unusual punishment.
Since the Albuquerque Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is a regulatory scheme that is not punitive in intent or effect, the retroactive application of the ordinance does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, double jeopardy, or cruel and unusual punishment prohibitions. ACLU of N.M. v. City of Albuquerque, 2006-NMCA-078, 139 N.M. 761, 137 P.3d 1215, 2006 N.M. App. LEXIS 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006).
Under current Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, no less than the death penalty, can be scrutinized for disproportionality and possibly be held unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment; however, legislatures necessarily possess broad authority in determining the types and limits of punishment for crimes. State v. Ortega, 1991-NMSC-084, 112 N.M. 554, 817 P.2d 1196, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 331 (N.M. 1991), abrogated as stated in Kersey v. Hatch, 2010-NMSC-020, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683, 2010 N.M. LEXIS 256 (N.M. 2010).
Sentence may constitute cruel and unusual punishment if its length is disproportionate to the crime punished. State v. Burdex, 1983-NMCA-087, 100 N.M. 197, 668 P.2d 313, 1983 N.M. App. LEXIS 743 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 100 N.M. 192, 668 P.2d 308, 1983 N.M. LEXIS 2344 (N.M. 1983).
Statutorily lawful sentence does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Burdex, 1983-NMCA-087, 100 N.M. 197, 668 P.2d 313, 1983 N.M. App. LEXIS 743 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 100 N.M. 192, 668 P.2d 308, 1983 N.M. LEXIS 2344 (N.M. 1983).
Damages.
Where a buyer had no reason for leaving a broker out of a transaction other than to divert commissions, punitive damages awarded did not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments based on the degree of reprehensibility of the conduct, the modest punitive damages awarded, and the fact that the award given was smaller than the statutory ratio for similar conduct under 57-12-10B NMSA 1978. Bogle v. Summit Inv. Co., L.L.C., 2005-NMCA-024, 137 N.M. 80, 107 P.3d 520, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 2 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005).
Defenses.
Despite the fact that a woman who drove her car into a family, killing one member and injuring two others, had a history of mental illness, a verdict of guilty but mentally ill, as permitted by 31-9-3 NMSA 1978, did not violate her rights under the due process clauses or the equal protection clauses of U.S. Const. amends. V, U.S. Const. amends. XIV, N.M. Const. art II § 14 or N.M. Const. art II § 18, nor did it constitute cruel and unusual punishment under U.S. Const. amends. VIII §§ and XIV or N.M. Const., arts. II, §§ 14, 18, and her sentence for murder was proper under 31-9-4 NMSA 1978; 31-9-3 NMSA 1978 as applied did not violate her constitutional rights either. State v. Neely, 1991-NMSC-087, 112 N.M. 702, 819 P.2d 249, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 330 (N.M. 1991).
Extradition.
Claim that defendant’s return to New Mexico from Texas without extradition proceedings or a waiver of extradition constituted cruel and unusual punishment did not raise an issue under either U.S. Const. amends. VIII or N.M. Const. art II § 13. State v. Mosley, 79 N.M. 514, 445 P.2d 391, 1968 N.M. App. LEXIS 504 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968).
Felony.
—Murder.
New Mexico’s felony-murder statute, requiring as it does both causation attributable to a defendant who may be acting through an accomplice, and an intent to kill or to do an act greatly dangerous to the lives of others or with knowledge that the act creates a strong probability of death or great bodily harm, is a valid exercise of the legislature’s authority to prescribe serious punishment for killings committed with the requisite criminal intent and that occur during the commission or attempted commission of a first degree or other inherently dangerous felony. State v. Ortega, 1991-NMSC-084, 112 N.M. 554, 817 P.2d 1196, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 331 (N.M. 1991), abrogated as stated in Kersey v. Hatch, 2010-NMSC-020, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683, 2010 N.M. LEXIS 256 (N.M. 2010).
Felony murder is not a strict liability crime, and the legislature’s broad authority to prescribe life imprisonment for it cannot be seriously questioned under U.S. Const. amends. VIII. State v. Ortega, 1991-NMSC-084, 112 N.M. 554, 817 P.2d 1196, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 331 (N.M. 1991), abrogated as stated in Kersey v. Hatch, 2010-NMSC-020, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683, 2010 N.M. LEXIS 256 (N.M. 2010).
—Sentencing.
New Mexico Capital Felony Sentencing Act does not violate the eighth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution or the New Mexico constitution because it does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Clark, 1999-NMSC-035, 128 N.M. 119, 990 P.2d 793, 1999 N.M. LEXIS 278 (N.M. 1999).
Incarceration of innocent person.
Because there is an opportunity for an innocent person to be pardoned in New Mexico, the incarceration of an individual who is actually innocent does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendments to the federal constitution. Montoya v. Ulibarri, 2007-NMSC-035, 142 N.M. 89, 163 P.3d 476, 2007 N.M. LEXIS 312 (N.M. 2007).
Jury discretion.
Defendant’s plea to murder and kidnapping was properly accepted by the trial court as it was intelligently and voluntarily given; his sentence for death was in proportion to his crime and was correctly decided by the jury after hearing aggravating and mitigating factors; the discretion afforded the capital jury was suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action. State v. Clark, 1989-NMSC-010, 108 N.M. 288, 772 P.2d 322, 1989 N.M. LEXIS 127 (N.M. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923, 110 S. Ct. 291, 107 L. Ed. 2d 271, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 4983 (U.S. 1989), overruled, State v. Henderson, 1990-NMSC-030, 109 N.M. 655, 789 P.2d 603, 1990 N.M. LEXIS 100 (N.M. 1990), overruled in part as stated in State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089, 122 N.M. 280, 923 P.2d 1165, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).
Jury information.
Defendant’s plea to murder and kidnapping was properly accepted by the trial court as it was intelligently and voluntarily given; his sentence for death was in proportion to his crime and was correctly decided by the jury after hearing aggravating and mitigating factors; the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit providing the jury with accurate information concerning post sentencing procedures. State v. Clark, 1989-NMSC-010, 108 N.M. 288, 772 P.2d 322, 1989 N.M. LEXIS 127 (N.M. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 923, 110 S. Ct. 291, 107 L. Ed. 2d 271, 1989 U.S. LEXIS 4983 (U.S. 1989), overruled, State v. Henderson, 1990-NMSC-030, 109 N.M. 655, 789 P.2d 603, 1990 N.M. LEXIS 100 (N.M. 1990), overruled in part as stated in State v. Sanchez, 1996-NMCA-089, 122 N.M. 280, 923 P.2d 1165, 1996 N.M. App. LEXIS 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996).
Liability.
Prisoner was not prohibited from bringing an action for damages under the New Mexico Tort Claims Act, 41-4-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., against prison officials for injuries he sustained when he was placed in solitary confinement where he also pursued an action against the same officials pursuant to the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 arising from the same occurrence. Not all tortious conduct subject to liability under state law amounted to “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of U.S. Const. amends. VIII, which was subject to § 1983 liability. Wells v. County of Valencia, 1982-NMSC-048, 98 N.M. 3, 644 P.2d 517, 1982 N.M. LEXIS 2838 (N.M. 1982).
Medical care was not cruel and unusual.
Petitioner’s Eighth Amendment claim that he was intentionally exposed to the hepatitis virus and received improper medical treatment was rejected because although he was not vaccinated against hepatitis, the evidence showed that petitioner had been tested nine times; that hepatitis B was not easily contracted through casual household contact, but was instead a blood-borne, sexually transmitted disease; and that a difference of opinion as to proper or reasonable treatment between petitioner and prison medical personnel did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Cordova v. LeMaster, 2004-NMSC-026, 136 N.M. 217, 96 P.3d 778, 2004 N.M. LEXIS 377 (N.M. 2004).
Other.
New Mexico Abuse and Neglect Act [32A-4-1 NMSA 1978] does not permit a court to find abuse or neglect based solely on a parent’s status, so it does not violate this amendment by permitting an improper status judgment; unfavorable personal status was only relevant to the extent that it prompts either the harms defined as abuse or neglect. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367, 2005 N.M. App. LEXIS 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005).
Practice and procedure.
Defendant’s claim that he was denied medical treatment while in jail did not raise an issue of cruel and unusual punishment because the claim was not one of cruelty in defendant’s punishment; furthermore, defendant did not claim that his guilty plea was involuntarily entered as a result of the alleged denial of treatment. State v. Blankenship, 1968-NMCA-026, 79 N.M. 178, 441 P.2d 218, 1968 N.M. App. LEXIS 456 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968).
Sentence.
Defendant’s sentence after being convicted of second-degree murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to kidnap, and related crimes, was not cruel and unusual. Defendant’s constitutional claim was predicated on his assertions that he did not detain, assault, and kill the victim and then help bury the body. As the appellate court held that the evidence supported the jury’s contrary inferences as to these crimes, defendant’s constitutional claim was without merit. State v. Huber, 2006-NMCA-087, 140 N.M. 147, 140 P.3d 1096, 2006 N.M. App. LEXIS 89 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 140 N.M. 279, 142 P.3d 360, 2006 N.M. LEXIS 342 (N.M. 2006).
—Generally.
Where defendant was sentenced to death for the kidnapping and murder of a nine-year-old girl, resentencing was necessary; the prosecutor stressed defendant’s future dangerousness to the jury when he would have been parole ineligible. Clark v. Tansy, 1994-NMSC-098, 118 N.M. 486, 882 P.2d 527, 1994 N.M. LEXIS 363 (N.M. 1994).
Where defendant had severe asthma and would not get adequate care in prison, sentencing her to a year in her parents’ custody was proper; the trial court properly concluded that imposing a mandatory prison sentence under 31-18-17B NMSA 1978, based on defendant’s status as a habitual offender, would have been cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. State v. Arrington, 1993-NMCA-055, 115 N.M. 559, 855 P.2d 133, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 51 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).
Verdict of guilty but mentally ill did not violate the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions, nor did it constitute cruel and unusual punishment; defendant was criminally responsible for first-degree murder. State v. Neely, 1991-NMSC-087, 112 N.M. 702, 819 P.2d 249, 1991 N.M. LEXIS 330 (N.M. 1991).
Sentence of 30 lashes to the bare back imposed on defendant, pursuant to former N.M. Comp. Laws § 37, pp. 340, 341, upon his conviction for larceny of a mule worth $200 was not cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by U.S. Const. amends. VIII. Garcia v. Territory, 1869-NMSC-001, 1 N.M. 415, 1869 N.M. LEXIS 1 (N.M. 1869).
—Excessive.
Sentencing defendant to a mandatory prison sentence under the habitual offender act, 31-18-17 NMSA would have violated U.S. Const. amends. VIII because defendant had severe asthma and would not get adequate care in prison. State v. Arrington, 1993-NMCA-055, 115 N.M. 559, 855 P.2d 133, 1993 N.M. App. LEXIS 51 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993).
—Not excessive.
Adult sentence totaling nearly 100 years imposed upon a juvenile for five counts of criminal sexual penetration and one count of intimidating a witness did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment where the evidence showed that the juvenile repeatedly and brutally raped his younger stepsister over a two-year period, threatened to kill her if she told on him, devastated his stepsister both emotionally and psychologically, showed no remorse for his acts, and demonstrated a likelihood to offend again in the future. State v. Ira, 2002-NMCA-037, 132 N.M. 8, 43 P.3d 359, 2002 N.M. App. LEXIS 15 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 132 N.M. 83, 44 P.3d 529, 2002 N.M. LEXIS 140 (N.M. 2002).
Incarceration in prison would not amount to deliberate indifference to defendant’s serious asthma problem so as to constitute cruel and unusual punishment under U.S. Const. amends. VIII and N.M. Const. art II § 13, because evidence showed that the prison could quickly provide both medical personnel and necessary care. State v. Arrington, 1995-NMCA-057, 120 N.M. 54, 897 P.2d 241, 1995 N.M. App. LEXIS 56 (N.M. Ct. App.), cert. denied, 896 P.2d 490, 1995 N.M. LEXIS 228 (N.M. 1995).
Where defendant was convicted of murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, and criminal sexual penetration, the imposition of the death penalty for a deliberate murder was neither the purposeless imposition of severe punishment nor punishment grossly disproportionate for the crime. State v. Cheadle, 101 N.M. 282, 681 P.2d 708, 1983 N.M. LEXIS 2365 (1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 945, 104 S. Ct. 1930, 80 L. Ed. 2d 475 (1984); overruled on other grounds, State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025, 146 N.M. 357, 210 P.3d 783, 2009 N.M. LEXIS 402 (N.M. 2009).
Imposition of multiple valid sentences to run consecutively did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as contemplated by U.S. Const. amends. VIII or by N.M. Const. art II § 13; defendant was not entitled to postconviction relief on the ground of cruel and unusual punishment because the imposition of consecutive sentences for murder, an act of carnal knowledge, and kidnapping, was lawful. State v. Padilla, 1973-NMSC-049, 85 N.M. 140, 509 P.2d 1335, 1973 N.M. LEXIS 1245 (N.M. 1973).
Imposition of a maximum penalty of life imprisonment under the Indeterminate Sentence Act, N.M. former 41-17-1, 1953 Comp. on two inmates who were convicted of sodomy did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment because the sentence els consistent with the rehabilitative purpose of the Act. Washington v. Rodriguez, 1971-NMCA-021, 82 N.M. 428, 483 P.2d 309, 1971 N.M. App. LEXIS 665 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).
Defendant convicted of attempted robbery of a train was properly sentenced to death by hanging, and the sentence was not cruel and unusual within the prohibition of U.S. Const. amends. VIII because it was not excessive as compared with the gravity of the offense. Territory v. Ketchum, 1901-NMSC-006, 10 N.M. 718, 65 P. 169, 1901 N.M. LEXIS 6 (N.M. 1901).
Research References and Practice Aids
New Mexico Law Review.
Note: State v. Flores: In the Wake of Atkins v. Virginia, New Mexico Tackles Capital Punishment for Defendants with Mental Disabilities, Aletheia V.P. Allen, 35 N.M. L. Rev. 557 (2005).
Article: Developing the Eighth Amendment for Those “Least Deserving” of Punishment: Statutory Mandatory Minimums for Non-Capital Offenses Can Be “Cruel and Unusual” When Imposed on Mentally Retarded Offenders, Timothy Cone, 34 N.M. L. Rev. 35 (2004).