Briana H Zamora

From Portia Project Podcast interview with Justice Zamora.

• "My hero is probably Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I’ve read a lot about her. I thought she was amazing, not only in her status as a Justice but also personally. She was a mom. She had lost her mom. I look up at her. She's amazing[,]" said Justice Zamora.
• "...Given the choice of anyone in the world, who would you invite to a dinner party?" "Michelle Obama[,]" said Justice Zamora.

New Mexico Business Coalition's 2022 voter guide, “Briana has dedicated her career to public service because she understands the human impact that judicial rulings have for all New Mexicans across our great state. She is committed to improving our community through her continued public service and dedication to our justice system.”

“As we face unprecedented challenges, I see opportunities,” said Justice Zamora. “With the leadership of my fellow justices and the entire judiciary, I am confident that we can emerge from these difficult times with great resolve and a greater appreciation of our sense of fairness and justice.” 

Member of the steering committee for the Commission on Equity and Inclusion (2021)

Co-chair of the Pipeline Committee for Commission on Equity and Justice (2021)

In the video Justice  Zamora introduc[ed] a "pilot diversion program to help guide people with severe mental illness to appropriate treatment and away from the criminal justice system[.]"

Endorsed by New Mexico Federation of Labor (AFL-CIO) in 2022.

Notable Cases:

• State v. Mares, 2024-NMSC-002, 543 P.3d 1198. Justice Zamora concurred in Justice Vargas' opinion. The Court held that police may initiate contact with a represented defendant and sought to obtain the defendant’s statement and waiver of counsel outside the presence of counsel even when the defendant previously asserted the right to council in court. The Court found the facts were not distinguishable from Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009). Additionally, “[the Court] h[eld] that the Court of Appeals should certify an issue when it appears that [the Court’s] precedent directly controls that issue and is contrary to later United States Supreme Court precedent. [The Court] further clarify[ied] that [it] accepts certification of issues rather than cases, thus abrogating Collins ex rel. Collins v. Tabet, 1991-NMSC-013, ¶ 46 n.10, 111 N.M. 391, 806 P.2d 40” (2) The court determined that it would not reach the issue of whether Article II, Section 14 of the North Mexico Constitution provided greater protections than the Sixth amendment because the defendant did not preserve the issue for review at the trial court. The Court said “we have different preservation requirements depending upon whether the relevant state constitutional provision has previously been interpreted more broadly than its federal counterpart” (15). To preserve an issue of established precedent, it must be made in the trial court. “Defendant has not met his burden to show that his constitutional claim under Article II, Section 14 was preserved.” (16). Facts: The case arose after “Defendant requested counsel to assist in his defense, and the court appointed counsel. Counsel advised Defendant not to speak with anyone about the case, including police. The following day, notwithstanding the fact that Defendant was represented by counsel, police interviewed Defendant in jail.” (3). In the interview, the defendant waived his Miranda rights and made potentially incriminating statements. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the interview, arguing that Montejo did not control because it was factually distinguishable. Substantive Analysis: Regarding the substantive issue in the case, the question is “whether Defendant waived [the right to council] and whether his request for counsel at his first appearance invalidated such a waiver” (11).
• State v. Lobato-Rodriguez, 2024-NMSC-014, 548 P.3d 21. Justice Zamora authored the opinion. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals holding that the “prosecutor’s comment violated Defendant’s “Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and was irrelevant to any issue at trial[,]” (5) [but] conclude[d] that the error was harmless in the context of the trial as a whole.” (1) The Court found that the prosecutor’s comment regarding the Defendant “assert[ing] his right to remain silent” was “clearly a constitutional error.” (5) Further the Court held that the comment “was improper ‘as a matter of New Mexico evidentiary law.” (5) The Court found the comment was harmless stating that “[u]nder the unique circumstances of this case, [the Court] perceive[d] no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor’s comment on silence affected the jury’s verdict.” (9) The Court thus concluded the error was “harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” (9) Facts: The case arose after the “[d]efendant Isaias Lobato-Rodriguez was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.” (1) “The Court of Appeals vacated his conviction on the ground that the prosecutor, by commenting in the opening statement on Defendant’s failure to speak to police, had violated Defendant’s right to remain silent under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that such violation was not harmless error.” (1) 
• Rawlings v. Rawlings, 2024-NMSC-008, 548 P.3d 43. Justice Zamora concurred in Justice Thomson's opinion. The Court “conclude[d] the language of Rule 1-053.2 (2017) d[id] not require a district court to hold an in-person hearing.” (2) The Court “conclude[d] that the district court set forth a reasoned basis for resolving Mother’s objections to the hearing officer’s recommendations when it independently reviewed the record and adopted, modified, or rejected the hearing officer’s recommendations in the final order.” (2) “[The Court] conclude[d] that the district court had jurisdiction to clarify the record and amend the final decree because the information clarified and amended was collateral to or separate from the issue on appeal, pursuant to Rule 1-060(A).” (8) Part B of Rule 1-053.2(H) (2017), the applicable law, stated that “[i]f a party file[d] timely, specific objections to the recommendations, the court shall conduct a hearing appropriate and sufficient to resolve the objections. The hearing shall consist of a review of the record unless the court determines that additional evidence will aid in the resolution of the objections.” (4)
• State v. Lopez, 2023-NMSC-011, 529 P.3d 893. Justice Zamora authored the opinion. Holding: The Court affirmed the conviction, holding that “the tolling provision of Rule 7-506.1(D) applie[d] to cases that are dismissed without prejudice including cases dismissed by the metropolitan court and cases voluntarily dismissed by the prosecution. (7) Facts: The case arose after the “Defendant was arraigned in the metropolitan court on charges including aggravated driving while intoxicated (DWI) and reckless driving.”(2) The trial date was moved and the officer did not appear. The state requested a continuance, and the defendant filed a motion to dismiss. The metropolitan court dismissed, and the state filed to a notice to refiling the complaint. The metropolitan court then filed notice of a new jury trial. “On July 23, 2018, one day before the scheduled trial date, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 7-506(B), arguing that the State’s deadline to try Defendant was July 20.” (2) The metropolitan court concluded that the 182-day rule was tolled. “Defendant timely appealed to the district court, which affirmed the metropolitan court.” (2). “Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed the district court, agreed with the analysis of the district court” (3).

Notable Cases Continued:

• State ex rel. Candelaria v. Grisham, 2023-NMSC-031, 539 P.3d 690. Justice Zamora Concurred in Justice Varga's opinion. Holding: “Consistent with [its] writ of mandamus issued November 18, 2021, [the Court] conclude[d] that the authority lies with the Legislature” (3) Issue: “whether the legislative or executive branch controls the [ARPA COVID-19] funds.”(3) Facts: “New Mexico received approximately $1.75 billion in ARPA funds. The Legislature attempted to appropriate the ARPA funds through the General Appropriation Act of 2021, 2021 N.M. Laws, ch. 137, §§ 1-15. In response, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham vetoed the portions that related to ARPA funds”(4) “Prior to the commencement of this proceeding, the Governor spent approximately $600 million of the $1.75 billion in ARPA funds received by New Mexico, leaving approximately $1.08 billion to be distributed”(4) Two senators petitioned for a writ of mandamus to prevent and additional spending. Analysis:  The court then confirmed that a writ of mandamus was a proper form of relief because “”original jurisdiction in mandamus in instances where a petitioner [seeks] to restrain one branch of government from unduly encroaching or interfering with the authority of another branch in violation of Article III, Section 1 of our state constitution.”(7) Analyzing the eligible uses for the funds under ARPA according to the text of the statute, the Court found that “[a]ll four categories allow state governments broad discretion to determine how ARPA funds should be used." (9) The court then addressed the separation of powers issue that is at the core of the case. Because the state constitution does not appear to distinguish federal and state funds, “[the Court] look[ed] to approaches adopted in other states to assist us in our examination of what factors or conditions ultimately determine which branch of government controls the funds.” (25) The Court determined that “[w]hen the funds come with specific conditions attached, the executive branch is merely administering the funds consistent with the requirements established by the federal government and no legislative appropriation is required.”(28) The Court found that because ARPA did not contain specific conditions in the statute that, "[I]f the Governor were to unilaterally control how ARPA funds are spent, she would exceed her power to execute the laws and infringe on the Legislature’s appropriation power.” (30) While the Governor argued that the funds had not become the property of the state because she held them in suspense accounts the Court concluded that, “the funds must be transferred from the suspense account into the proper fund before they are spent— not after.” (33)
  
• Indigenous Lifeways v. New Mexico Compilation Comm'n Advisory Comm., 2023-NMSC-010, 528 P.3d 678. Justice Zamora concurred in Justice Vigil's majority opinion. The Court held that the amendment did not violate Article XIX, Section 1. The Court found that “the Legislature’s choice to join the various changes together in a single-ballot measure was not irrational. ‘[I]t comports better with the doctrine of separation of powers to decide what rationally may be joined rather than what rationally may be separated.’’ (11) The Court also “conclude[d] that Amendment 1’s title did not mislead voters so as to ‘exacerbate[] the problems inherent in the vice of logrolling.’” (12) The Court found that “Amendment 1 alert[ed] voters as to the nature and scope of the proposed changes to Article XI, Sections 1 and 2.” (12)) The Court, “defer[ed] to the Legislature’s judgment and discretion in fixing the title of Amendment 1[,] finding that the 'Legislature’s decision to omit [certain] details [wa]s not unreasonable and d[id] not render the ballot title misleading.'” (12) The regarded “A constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature and approved by the electorate in the 2020 general election [that] made a number of changes governing the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (Commission or PRC). N.M. Const. art. XI, §§ 1-2. (2) “The proposed changes to Article XI, Sections 1 and 2 were submitted to the electorate in a single-ballot question.” (3) “The question was identified as Constitutional Amendment 1, with the following title: Proposing To Amend The Constitution Of New Mexico To Provide That The Public Regulation Commission Consist Of Three Members Appointed By The Governor From A List Of Professionally Qualified Nominees Submitted To The Governor By A Nominating Committee As Provided By Law And That The Commission Is Required To Regulate Public Utilities And May Be Required To Regulate Other Public Service Companies.” (8) Petitioners contend the amendment violates New Mexico Constitution which “prohibits logrolling1 by directing: ‘If two or more [constitutional] amendments are initiated by the legislature, they shall be so submitted as to enable the electors to vote on each of them separately.’ N.M. Const. art. XIX, § 1.” (2) The applicable law, “Article XIX, Section 1[,] [wa]s designed ‘to prevent “logrolling,” a legislative practice of joining together two or more independent measures so those who support any one measure will feel obliged to vote for the others in order to secure passage of the measure they favor.’ Chavez, 1988-NMSC-103, ¶ 6.” (8) 
• State v. Anderson, 2023-NMSC-019, 536 P.3d 453. Justice Zamora authored the opinion. The Court reversed the district court, holding that, a defendant charged with a felony can be detained without bail prior to trial if the State demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that (1) the defendant is dangerous and (2) no release conditions will reasonably protect the safety of any individual or the community. The Court found that “the district court applied the wrong test: it did not apply the Rule 5- 409 factors but instead analyzed the case through the lens of Groves, which described three generals ‘categories of determinations’ that the district court must make at a detention hearing.” (10). However, Groves was prior to the enactment of Rule 5-409 and is therefore no longer good law. The Court found that the district court abused his discretion. “The district court did not apply the correct analytical framework of Rule 5-409 and did not make individualized findings as to each factor in Rule 5-409(F)(6). That error rendered the ruling not in accordance with law.” (10). The Court found that “[c]ontrary to the district court’s findings, Defendant did not in fact comply with release supervision in the cases cited by the district court. Finally, Defendant’s extensive criminal history, along with the pending charges and facts, establish that it was beyond reason—and therefore an abuse of discretion.” (10). “The totality of these circumstances indicates that Defendant has an extensive and undeniable history of violence, noncompliance, and continual law and rule breaking” (13). The Court then gave thorough guidance to the district court on how to properly apply Rule 5-409 factors, especially the second prong of the pretrial detention inquiry.
• State v. Jesenya O., 2022-NMSC-014, 514 P.3d 445. Justice Zamora authored opinion. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and “reinstate[d] Child’s delinquency adjudications.” (2) The Court held that “the State’s authentication showing was sufficient under Rule 11-901 to support a finding that, more likely than not, the Facebook Messenger account used to send the messages belonged to Child and that Child was the author of the messages.” (2) The Court “conclude[d] that the Court of Appeals properly relied on the traditional standard under Rule 11-901 as the framework for assessing the authenticity of the February 25 messages, but that it misapplied the provisions of Rule 11-901(B)(1) and (B)(4) to the facts and circumstances of this case and failed to afford proper deference to the district court.” (4) The Court found that the “test applied by the Court of Appeals [was] at odds with the flexible approach that the authentication process envisions, under which the genuineness of a particular document—whether conventional or digital—is assessed through reliance on reasonable inferences, not absolute certainty.” (11) The Court found that “in meeting [the] threshold, the proponent need not demonstrate authorship of the evidence conclusively; arguments contesting authorship go to the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.” (6) The applicable law stated that “[f]or evidence to be properly authenticated under Rule 11-901 there must be a showing ‘sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.’ Rule 11-901(A).” (5) “’The appearance, contents, substance, internal patterns, or other distinctive characteristics of the item, taken together with all the circumstances’ may be considered in determining whether evidence has been adequately authenticated. Rule 11-901(B)(4).” (5) The case arose when “[a]t Child’s adjudication, the State sought to introduce evidence of communications between Child and Erickson that the State alleged took place on Facebook Messenger the day after the incident involving Erickson’s vehicle.” (3) The district court admitted the evidence. The Court of Appeals later “concluded that, while communications arising on social media platforms are subject to the same authentication requirements as other evidence subject to Rule 11-901, the State had failed in its burden to properly authenticate the messages.” (4) “In so holding, the Court of Appeals focused in part on the fact that the content of the messages was not ‘sufficiently confidential to establish that only Child could have authored the messages.’” (4) The Court [of Appeals] concluded the error in admitting the messages for the jury’s consideration was not harmless, vacated Child’s adjudications, and remanded for a new hearing.” (4)