Doe v. State

Decision Date21 August 1978
Docket NumberNo. 11965,11965
Citation1978 NMSC 68,92 N.M. 74,582 P.2d 1287
PartiesJohn DOE, a child, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

EASLEY, Justice.

The prior opinion filed in this case on July 10, 1978 is hereby withdrawn and this opinion substituted therefor.

The trial court found that this child committed a delinquent act the offense of larceny of less than $100, a misdemeanor. That court also found the child to be in need of care and rehabilitation, although there was no evidence received at the trial except that which related to the larceny charge. The trial judge then committed the child to the Boy's School in Springer. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We reverse.

We inquire whether the trial court could properly find that the child was in need of care and rehabilitation where the only evidence upon which the court could base its opinion was contained in a pre-disposition report submitted after trial.

Statutory Requirements

On a petition alleging delinquency under the Children's Code, § 13-14-28, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. 1976), the hearing proceeds in three phases. The first two phases are adjudicatory proceedings to determine delinquency, and jeopardy attaches to them. Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975). The third phase is not adjudicatory but merely dispositional. The standard for admissibility of evidence in adjudicatory phases of the hearing is clearly different from that in the dispositional phase of the hearing.

The Code requires in the first phase that the court determine whether the child committed the delinquent act. § 13-14-28(D). If the court finds "on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based upon competent, material and relevant evidence" that the child committed the act, § 13-14-28(E), then the court proceeds, in the second phase, to determine whether or not the child is in need of care and rehabilitation. The offense in question here not being a felony, 1 the court must then find, "on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, competent, material and relevant in nature," that the child is in need of care and rehabilitation. § 13-14-28(F). Only after the above findings are made may the court proceed in the third phase, either immediately or at a postponed hearing, to make a disposition of the child. § 13-14-28(F).

In that part of the hearings held under the Children's Code on Dispositional issues all relevant and material evidence helpful in determining the questions presented, including oral and written reports, may be received by the court and may be relied upon to the extent of its probative value Even though not competent had it been offered during the part of the hearings on adjudicatory issues and the issue of need for care and rehabilitation.

§ 13-14-28(G) (emphasis added).

Use of the Pre-disposition Report

The pre-disposition report received by the judge in this case is composed primarily of hearsay evidence which would be clearly incompetent within the meaning of the statute in either of the adjudicatory phases of the proceedings. In re R., 1 Cal.3d 855, 83 Cal.Rptr. 671, 464 P.2d 127 (1970). It was not shown to be "competent, material and relevant in nature" as the statute mandates. To use such hearsay and untested evidence to determine delinquency is constitutionally impermissible as a denial of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Ricky G.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 30 Agosto 1990
    ...child is in need of care and rehabilitation, or what disposition should be ordered. See Sec. 32-1-31(D), (E), (F); see Doe v. State, 92 N.M. 74, 582 P.2d 1287 (1978). Within this context, the statutory provision allowing the children's court to proceed immediately to disposition provides fl......
  • Gonzales v. Gonzales
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 20 Diciembre 1993
    ... ... Sartain v. Fidelity Fin. Servs., Inc., 116 Idaho 269, 775 P.2d 161, 164 (Ct.App.1989) ...         The theory underlying the use of a correction deed to negate a prior conveyance appears to derive from two distinct but related equitable principles. See Norman v. State, 182 Mont. 439, 597 P.2d 715, 718 (1979) (comparing estoppel by deed and by equitable estoppel). See also 28 Am.Jur.2d Estoppel and Waiver Sec. 4, at 602-03 (1966) (estoppel by deed); Sec. 27, at 627-29 (equitable estoppel). Under the principle described as estoppel by deed, one party (or privy) ... ...
  • State v. Doe, 3710
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 5 Diciembre 1978
    ...and then take up the question of the child's need for care or supervision. See Children's Court Rule 44(f), supra, and Doe v. State, 92 N.M. 74, 582 P.2d 1287 (1978). Knowing that relevant information would not be provided, the court could properly dismiss on the basis of the refusal to Nor......
  • State v. Doe
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 16 Octubre 1980
    ...was in need of care or rehabilitation; such a finding is required in order to adjudicate a child to be a delinquent. Doe v. State, 92 N.M. 74, 582 P.2d 1287 (1978); State v. Doe, 93 N.M. 206, 598 P.2d 1166 The record in Cause No. 4689 shows the transfer of the child to the Boys' School was ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT