Evidence issue going to U.S. high court

By Todd Wildermuth
for The Raton Range

The Raton Range/STPNS

July 02, 2008

RATON, New Mexico (STPNS) -- The state attorney general's office will take to the U.S. Supreme Court an evidentiary question in a vehicular homicide case from Colfax County that involves Miranda rights - those relating to a person being informed by police that he has the right to remain silent and to have an attorney.

The New Mexico Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April in the case of a Texas man charged in connection with a crash on U.S. 87 involving his pickup truck and another pickup driven by a California woman who was killed in the collision. The crash occurred about a mile east of Raton in March 2005.

The issue before the state's high court was the admissibility of statements made to police by the accused man, Roger Snell, 61, of Spring Branch, Texas, shortly after the deadly crash. That is the same issue the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to review, according to a spokesman for the state attorney general's office. The case has been held up while the evidentiary issue has been argued at various court levels.

It was the attorney general's office that handled the issue in question through the appeals process in New Mexico after a district judge in 2006 granted a defense motion excluding Snell's statements from being used during a trial. The attorney general's office is assigned to handle the prosecution side of all criminal appeals in the state.

With the U.S. Supreme Court granting the petition to review the case, the attorney general's office has until Aug. 15 to submit a filing regarding its arguments and the ruling it is seeking.

The initial appellate court judge who reviewed the case proposed to overturn the District Court ruling regarding the statements, but the case went to a three-judge panel for a final decision and the court was convinced to allow the District Court ruling to stand.

The state Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments April 14, but four days later reversed its initial decision to review the case, determining that it would not issue a decision and instead let the Court of Appeals' decision stand. The attorney general's office on May 5 filed a motion for the state Supreme Court to rehear the issue, but the court denied the motion.

Since then, Eighth Judicial District Attorney Donald Gallegos had discussions with the attorney general's office about the possibility of the state petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, Gallegos said Monday.

Asked if the case would move forward if the statements in question remained barred, Gallegos said he and his prosecutors would have to "re-evaluate" the case to determine how critical among the overall evidence are the statements that have been suppressed.

Snell is charged with vehicular homicide in the death of Heather Nielsen, 20, of Victorville, Calif., in the March 25, 2005, crash.

Snell's attorney, Steven McConnell of Raton, filed the motion that resulted in the District Court ruling to exclude Snell's statements to an investigating state police officer. The statements were made during the questioning of Snell that took place in the officer's patrol car near the scene of the crash, as well as about one and a half hours later when the officer telephoned Snell's motel room and questioned him again. Snell had not been read his Miranda rights before making the statements.

Snell was not charged with vehicular homicide until December 2005, almost nine months after the crash.

The defense motion alleged state police Officer Eric Jones conducted an "improper custodial interrogation" of Snell without advising Snell of his right to remain silent.

The prosecution filed a response denying that Snell had been subjected to "custodial interrogation" - that he was not in custody - and saying that the statements were not taken by the officer in violation of Snell's Miranda rights.

The defense motion argued that although Snell may not have been under arrest at the time, he was in a "custodial interrogation" because he did not feel free to leave, adding that he was also unable to leave since the state police had towed away his damaged pickup truck after the crash, which occurred during a snowstorm.

The state Court of Appeals upheld the District Court decision, ruling that Snell was in police custody, finding that under the circumstances, a reasonable person would "believe that he was not free to leave." The appellate court also found the prosecution failed to adequately show that the statements made later by Snell from his motel room were not tainted by the earlier police failure to read him his Miranda rights.

According to state police, Snell was traveling too fast for the snowy conditions the day of the crash when his truck began to slide, crossing into the lane of oncoming traffic. Snell, traveling west in a 2001 Ford pickup, suffered no injuries in the 6 p.m. crash, according to authorities. Snell's truck crashed into a 1968 Chevrolet pickup

Search this newspaper's archives at: The Raton Range Archives