On September 28 and 29, the following news story was published by the Albuquerque Journal:
“The Albuquerque Journal’s editor in chief is on leave after pleading guilty to a shoplifting incident at a Walmart in Rio Rancho last month.
Patrick Ethridge, 47, was charged with misdemeanor shoplifting on Aug. 24.
Ethridge pleaded guilty on Wednesday morning and Rio Rancho Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson immediately sentenced him to 90 days in jail, with 80 days suspended.
Ethridge is currently serving a 10-day sentence at the Sandoval County Detention Center. Under New Mexico law, a petty misdemeanor is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine.
Ethridge’s attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
“I am saddened to announce that, effective immediately, I am putting our Executive Editor, Patrick Ethridge, on a mandatory leave of absence,” Journal Publisher William P. Lang said in a statement Friday. “We don’t know or understand all the details yet, but were shocked to learn that he has been charged with shoplifting and sentenced by a Municipal Judge in Rio Rancho, where he is currently serving ten days.”
Lang added, “At the Albuquerque Journal, we believe in being transparent, and holding people to a higher standard, including ourselves. We appreciate your support and concern, and will report more information when it is clear to us.”
Ethridge became executive editor and vice president of the Journal on May 30, 2023.
With 26 years of experience with newspapers, Ethridge’s most recent role before the Journal was as editor and publisher of the Beatrice Daily Sun in Nebraska.
On Aug. 24, Rio Rancho police responded to a shoplifting at the Walmart Supercenter at Unser and Southern, according to a criminal complaint filed in Municipal Court. Store security told police that two boys were “acting disorderly around the store, knocking over displays and concealing items.”
Police said officers identified the boys as Ethridge’s sons and found the family in the self-checkout area and “advised them of the allegations.” Officers watched surveillance video, which showed the boys opening energy drinks, drinking some and putting them on the shelf again.
While reviewing the footage, officers saw Ethridge “skip scanning” items — which means pretending to scan items through self-checkout without paying, according to the complaint. Officers said Ethridge would “scan some items and not others.”
“The sum of all unpaid merchandise, including the energy drinks the boys consumed, was $104.20,” according to police.
On Thursday, Ethridge’s attorney, filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea and said he had initially pleaded guilty “wanting to get this case over with as expeditiously as possible” and “in spite of the fact that he did not intentionally steal any items.”
In the motion, Ethridge said he didn’t know the items had not been scanned and “asked to pay for the unscanned items.”
“The store refused to do this and pressed charges of shoplifting against Mr. Ethridge instead,” according to the motion.”
REVIEW OF CRIMINAL COMPLAINT FILED
On October 2 the political blog “New Mexico Politics With Joe Monahan” reported that a Criminal complaint was filed on August 26 in Rio Rancho Municipal Court in Sandoval County by Rio Rancho Police Officer Marcus Packer charging Patrick Ethridge with the single crime of SHOPLIFTNG. Monahan corrected his September 29 blog article where he erroneously reported that Rancho Municipal Court Judge Robert Cook sentenced Etheridge to 10 days in jail when it was in fact Rio Rancho Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson who handled the case and imposed the sentence.
The criminal complaint states in part that on or about August 24, 2024, the defendant committed the crime of SHOPLIFTING. The criminal complaint provides a detailed factual narrative of what forms the basis of the charge and states:
“On August 24th, I, Officer Marcus Packer of the Rio Rancho Police Department was notified by RRPD Dispatch to proceed to the location of 901 Unser Blvd SE, in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Dispatch advised the call for service was in reference to an active shoplifting incident. The calling party was Wal-Mart Asset Protection (AP). AP advised there were two young boys inside of the store, described as approximately 10 years of age, one boy was wearing a black shirt, and the other was wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey over a grey hoodie. The boys were reportedly acting disorderly around the store, knocking over displays and concealing items.
I arrived on the scene and observed the described juveniles to be in the self checkout section, alongside their parents. I made contact with the family and advised them of the ongoing investigation.
Accompanied by the family, I proceeded to the AP office to view surveillance footage of the allegations.
The two boys were identified as [NAME REDACTED BECAUSE OF AGE] and [NAME REDACTED BECAUSE OF AGE] Etheridge, both born [birthdate redacted]. The farther was identified as Patrick Etheridge.
During my contact with [NAME REDACTED] and [NAME REDACTED] they were not in possession of any merchandise. Asset protection advised the boys were observed taking a can of Monster Energy drink each, drinking from the item and then placing the drinks back on the shelf. (Video footage will be uploaded to Axon Evidence when AP is able to obtain the surveillance).
After reviewing surveillance footage, Patrick was observed to be “skip scanning” items while located at the self check out. Patrick would scan some of the items but not others, leaving several items unpaid for. (Video footage will be uploaded to AXONE Evidence when AP is able to obtain the surveillance). The sum of all unpaid merchandise, including the energy drinks the boys consumed, was $104.20.”
NO ARRESTS MADE ON DAY OF INCIDENT
Patrick Etheridge and his two sons and spouse were not arrested nor taken into custody on August 24, the day of the incident, but were released by the investigating officer on their own reconnaissance. The criminal complaint was filed a mere two days later on August 26.
The criminal complaint identifies Patrick Etheridge as the sole defendant charged, giving his home address in Rio Rancho, his height, weight, color of hair, color of eyes. The criminal complaint does not provide an arrest date. The complaint does provide a case number showing the case was filed in Sandoval County, Rio Rancho Municipal Court.
The criminal complaint does not identify leaving blank the lines for Social Security Number, STN#, Arrest Date, Drivers License #, Citation #, Arrest #, Docket#. The date of filing is August 26 as reflected by the Court Stamp with Valerie Montoya identified as clerk of the court. There is a handwritten note in the upper right hand corner of the complaint that says “PLEASE SUMMON” ostensibly to indicate to the court clerk to issue a summons ordering the Defendant to appear on a specified date, time and courtroom.
The link to review the criminal complaint is here:
ARRAIGNMENT, ENTRY OF GUILTY PLEA AND IMMEDIATE SENTENCING
The criminal complaint indicates that a Summons was issued requiring that Patrick Etheridge appear in Rio Rancho Municipal Court ostensibly for an arraignment on the charges and to enter a plea of “not guilty” or “guilty” and determine conditions of release and to set a date for trial or sentencing.
Patrick Etheridge did not retain an attorney to represent him on September 25. On September 25, Etheridge appeared before Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson without an attorney and he plead guilty to the single charge of SHOPPLIFTING. No pre-sentence report was ordered by Judge Gibson and the judge immediately sentenced Ethridge to 90 days in jail, with 80 days suspended with 10 days in jail. According to Sandoval County Jail Detention Records, Etheridge was taken into custody at 10:17 AM on Wednesday morning September 25 immediately after the hearing.
COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS
Attorneys often point to a famous Abraham Lincoln quote when discussing defendants who try to represent themselves in a court of law. Lincoln said: “The man who represents himself has a fool for a client”. This entire news story involving the Albuquerque Journal’s Editor in Chief can be described as somewhat bizarre on a number of levels and it appears to be a classic example of what Abraham Lincoln was talking about when one tries to represent themselves in a court of law even for what many would think is a very minor criminal offense. Whenever there is even the slightest possibility for jail time, defendants need to seek legal representation.
POLICE OFFICER INVOLVED PROSECUTIONS
Under New Mexico law, shoplifting is a petty misdemeanor and is punishable by up to six months in jail and/or a $500 fine. A law enforcement officer has 100% discretion to make an arrest for a petty misdemeanor that they actually witness occurring in their presence. Where the offense does not occur in their presence, they have the option to gather evidence of the crime and to file a criminal complaint, which was what happened in this case. Such cases as misdemeanor and petty misdemeanor cases are referred to as Police Officer Prosecution cases.
The charging law enforcement officer bears the entire responsibility to prosecute the cases without the assistance of a city attorney or assistant district attorney. The officer must call witnesses, disclose evidence and present the case at trial and assume the same duties and responsibilities as a prosecuting attorney and follow the rules of criminal procedure and rules of evidence. The charging officer is required to attend all court hearing, including arraignment, motion hearings and the trial.
Failure of the officer to appear at any scheduled hearings can result in the case being dismissed for failure to prosecute which happens all the time in Bernalillo County Metro Court. Once a defendant is convicted of a charge, the Court has the authority to request a pre-sentence report from the probation department who make recommendations as to what is an appropriate sentence given the facts and circumstances of the case and the background of the defendant.
DEFECTS IN CRIMINAL COMPLAINT
The criminal complaint filed against Patrick Etheridge appears to be flawed for a number of reasons which would make it subject to a possible dismissal had he sought one. The criminal complaint does not identify and leaves blank the lines for Social Security Number, STN#, Arrest Date, Drivers License Number, Citation number, Arrest number and Docket number.
The overwhelming majority of the charging narrative deals with the disorderly conduct of the minor children, yet they were not charged and no reason was given. The criminal complaint states the officer “arrived on the scene and observed the described juveniles to be in the self checkout section, alongside their parents. I made contact with the family and advised them of the ongoing investigation. … Accompanied by the family, I proceeded to the AP office to view surveillance footage of the allegations.
It is the very last paragraph of the narrative that describes the alleged criminal conduct of the defendant and it is based upon a video that could be subject to varying interpretations and speculation as to what was actually going on. There is no supporting documentation attached as an exhibit to establish what was and was not scanned at the checkout stand. There is no representation that the scanner was in full working order. According to the Journal news report and the motion filed by his attorney, Ethridge initially pleaded guilty “wanting to get this case over with as expeditiously as possible” and “in spite of the fact that he did not intentionally steal any items.” Ethridge said in his motion he didn’t know the items had not been scanned and “asked to pay for the unscanned items.”
The charging officer does not identify the other parent by name, he states the “entire family” was taken to view the surveillance video. He does not disclose any admissions of guilt or exculpatory comments or explanations made to him by any of the family members or by Etheridge himself. No receipt appears to have been retrieved as what was in fact scanned for purchase by the family. It appears the officer made no arrest that required giving Miranda Warnings including advising the family of their right to remain silent and that they had the right to an attorney, but they were nonetheless the target of an investigation.
The most glaring defect in the complaint is that it charges Ethridge with shoplifting by alleging “The sum of all unpaid merchandise, including the energy drinks the boys consumed, was $104.20.” There is no indication that the goods, either food or clothing, were seized nor tagged into evidence by Rio Ranch Police Officer Marcus Packer, yet he alleges a total value down to the penny. The complaint does not include an inventory of items allegedly taken outlining the cost of each item to arrive at the $104.20 value alleged. Without seizure of the goods, it is sure speculation as to value of what was in fact shoplifted. Had the case gone to trial, the actual value of what was stolen would have to have be proven as an element of the offense and beyond a reasonable doubt.
There appears to be extenuating circumstances around the incident itself involving a parent or parents unable to exercise full and complete control of 10 year old children who were out of control and who were alleged to have engaged in disorderly conduct. The extent to which Etheridge was actually paying attention or distracted by his 10 years old boys as to what merchandise he was purchasing is called into question.
PROPIETY OF SENTENCE
Rarely are people jailed for a first misdemeanor offense, if at all, for shoplifting and they are usually placed on probation with a suspended sentence. Ethridge has no prior convictions, and the offense is a “none violent crime”. Notwithstanding, the judge imposed a 10 day sentence in jail, suspended the remaining 6 months, and suspended the $500 fine. The court could have ordered “community service” without jail time, or a deferred sentence for a period of probation and imposed a reduced fine.
When Ethridge pleaded guilty to the charge before Rio Rancho Municipal Court Judge Michael Gibson he was sentenced to a shocking 10 days for the petty misdemeanor. Nothing has been reported as to why Judge Gibson did not order a pre-sentence report which would have made recommendations on what type of sentence was appropriate given the defendants criminal record and background.
There is no report that the charging officer appeared in court on August 26 for the arraignment or for trial that would also have allowed plea negotiations with the charging officer which could have included a lesser charge and reduced sentence. Had the officer not appeared, Etheridge had the right to ask that the case be dismissed. By simply pleading guilty to the single charge of shoplifting, Patrick Etheridge waived his right to a trial and any and all defenses he had. He essentially threw himself on the mercy of the court.
ATTORNEY RETAINED AFTER THE FACT
Only after Ethridge plead guilty to the charge and was sentence to 10 days in jail did he retain the services of an attorney. He is represented by prominent criminal defense attorney Todd Bullion who was co-counsel with criminal defense attorney Jason Bowles. The attorneys defended Hannah Gutierrez Reed, the armorer on the movie set of Rust who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in jail in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer by Alec Baldwin on the Rust western movie set.
No details have been given as to exactly why Patrick Etheridge did not hire an attorney at the time he was charged and why no plea deal was struck for a suspended sentence nor why such a harsh sentence was imposed. Did he enter a guilty plea to protect his 10-year-old sons and perhaps his spouse to any degree? Did the charging officer make any representations or imply to any extent he would not charge family members in exchange for Ethridge to assume all responsibility?
A “Motion to Withdraw” the guilty plea has now been filed while Ethridge sits in jail. The 10 day sentence will expire on October 4 and he will be released. It is clear he will stay in jail before the court has time to schedule a hearing on the motion.
A major question that has been raised is how did the shoplifting arrest of the top editor of the Albuquerque Journal stay secret for so long? The incident occurred on August 24, but it was not reported on by the Albuquerque Journal until September 28. Additionally, the local TV news stations have yet to post any news story on their internet web pages.
There is little doubt that the arrest and jailing of Patrick Ethridge is a major embarrassment to the Albuquerque Journal. Over the years there have been news reporters working for papers who were immediately discharged for DWI and even disorderly conduct. The question that remains is will Patrick Etheridge step down or be terminated, or will the Albuquerque Journal accept an apology from Patrick Ethridge and move on as he seeks to clear his name and continue with his employment?