Media

Our Point of Contact for public information

The Doña Ana County District Attorney’s Public Information Office handles inquires submitted by the public and members of the news media. The primary function is to inform the public of the initiatives, programs, forums, and high-profile court cases. The PIO helps in coordinating print, electronic, and television interviews with the District Attorney, prepares press releases, and oversees social media sites and community outreach.

In determining which information may be released to the media, the Third Judicial District Attorney Public Information Office is guided by the New Mexico Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct; Trial publicity 16-306(a-d), (1-7), Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor, 16-308 (F) of the New Mexico Rules Annotated which may limit the amount, timing or detail of information released.

DISPOSITIONAL ORDER OF REVERSALPER CURIAM.{1} WHEREAS, this matter came before the Court on the State’s notice of appeal as of right pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 39-3-3(B)(2) (1972), requesting that this Court reverse the district court’s decision to exclude the State’s exhibits for trial following the State’s late disclosure of those exhibits;{2} WHEREAS, this Court entered an order remanding the matter to the district court for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to explain its decision to exclude the State’s trial exhibits in accordance with the framework articulated in State v. Harper, 2011-NMSC-044, ¶¶ 16-20, 150 N.M. 745, 266 P.3d 25, and clarified in State v. Le Mier, 2017-NMSC-017, ¶¶ 20-23, 394 P.3d 959;{3} WHEREAS, the district court judge filed a memorandum with this Court determining, among other things, that the State was not prejudiced because the district court “did not exclude witnesses or any proposed testimony,” but instead only excluded demonstrative aids, and that “[t]here were . . . issues with the proposed exhibits that would have ultimately led to exclusion independent of the deadlines imposed by the Pretrial Scheduling Order, e.g., [Rules] 11-403[ and] 11-1006 [NMRA].” In support of its determination, the district court included with its memorandum Attachment A, a chart explaining the reasons the district court believed each of the exhibits would have ultimately been excluded;{4} WHEREAS, the undersigned Justices have considered the briefs, argument of the parties, and the district court judge’s memorandum to this Court, and are fully informed on the issues and applicable law;{5} WHEREAS, the district court failed to adequately explain the reasons for its exclusion of the State’s exhibits in light of the circumstances surrounding the State’s delayed disclosure and further improperly prejudged the proposed exhibits without argument from the parties; and{6} WHEREAS, the district court abused its discretion when it excluded the State’s exhibits;{7} NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the district court to exclude the State’s exhibits is reversed and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this order. On remand, the case shall be assigned to a pro tem judge designated by this Court to conduct all remaining proceedings, including but not limited to the trial on the merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED. C. SHANNON BACON, Chief Justice MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Justice DAVID K. THOMSON, Justice JULIE J. VARGAS, Justice BRIANA H. ZAMORA, Justice

Contact the PIO

Roxanne Garcia-McElmell
(575) 524-6370 - Office
(575) 915-5954 - Mobile

Follow Us on Social Media

View Public Information Act

Media Inquiries:

If you are a member of the media seeking information from the 3rd Judicial District Attorney’s Office, please contact us at (575) 524-6370 or email us at [email protected]. If you wish to sign up for press releases email, please send us the following information: