Judge ends former Las Cruces teacher's probation early, dismisses sex charges

A state judge ended a former Las Cruces teacher’s probation early and dismissed his criminal sexual misconduct charges less than two weeks after a federal jury awarded $44 million to one of the victims in a related civil rights case.

The actions last month by longtime state district court judge Doug Driggers allowed defendant Patrick Howard to have his criminal defense attorney’s fees paid under a school insurance policy, and conceivably could allow his return to teaching students, a lawyer for the victims said Monday.

“I feel that the termination of Patrick Howard’s felony probation is a slap in the face to these victims,” said their attorney Mollie McGraw, of Las Cruces.

The decision came so fast, the Doña Ana County District Attorney’s office had no time to alert victims who might have wanted to attend or speak at a March 21 hearing on the matter, a spokeswoman from the Dona Ana County District Attorney’s office said on Monday.

At the time Howard’s criminal case was dismissed March 21, he had completed less than three years of a five-year supervised probation after pleading guilty in May 2021 to criminal sexual contact of a minor by a person in position of authority, a third-degree felony, and to misdemeanor criminal battery involving a different former female student.

Driggers granted him a conditional discharge back then, meaning that if Howard successfully completed the terms of his five-year supervised probation, his conviction would be expunged.

Howard was indicted in 2018 on criminal sexual contact charges after several female high school students reported he had touched them inappropriately at school, or while they were asleep on school-related trips. He taught agricultural science at Las Cruces High School and was the advisor for the school’s chapter of Future Farmers of America at the time.

On March 11, a five-woman, three-man jury in federal court in Las Cruces awarded one of the young women $44 million in damages, after a weeklong trial. She sued Howard for violating her constitutional rights to equal protection and to bodily integrity. Four days later, Howard’s defense attorney Jeep Darnell, of El Paso, filed a motion in state district court in Las Cruces asking Driggers to terminate Howard’s criminal probation, which was to end in May 2026.

Darnell didn’t return a Journal phone call seeking comment on Monday. Howard couldn’t be reached for comment.

Darnell’s court motion said his client “has been faithfully reporting to the Corrections Department and completed all of the required counseling” and community service. He received certificates for completion of behavior therapy and anger management programs.

On March 19, Driggers scheduled a 15-minute hearing to occur two days later to decide the issue. And two days later, on March 21, Driggers issued an order granting the request.

The judge’s order, which was amended several days later to include dismissal of the case, states that the “Corrections Department approves said Motion and that Defendant has paid all fines and assessments ordered herein. The Court further finds that the Defendant has satisfactorily fulfilled the conditions of his probation.”

Darnell’s motion stated that he spoke with Howard’s probation officer, who “indicated that he leaves the granting of this motion to the Court’s discretion.” Adult probation and parole officers work for the state Corrections Department.

It wasn’t clear if anyone from the office of the Doña Ana County District Attorney’s office appeared at the March 21 hearing or argued against ending the probation. No response to the defense attorney’s motion is filed in the case, although the judge’s amended order states it had been electronically approved by a deputy district attorney on March 22.

Roxanne Garcia-McElmell, the public information officer for the DA’s office in Las Cruces, told the Journal that, “the judge gave us literally 18 hours to notify the victims when victims are entitled to at least seven days. The courts are making determinations without the victims’ input, for sure,” she added.

Garcia-McElmell told the Journal Monday afternoon she needed to check further on whether her office was represented at the hearing.

Meanwhile, a copy of Howard’s insurance coverage through the New Mexico Public Schools Insurance Authority states that his criminal defense costs will be reimbursed if Howard provides proof of loss and his “exoneration or dismissal of all charges.” Under “covered events,” the document includes “sexual abuse” “molestation” and “battery.” The copy of his memorandum of coverage was filed in the federal civil rights case in January.

McGraw told the Journal on Monday that with the judge’s action on the conditional discharge, anyone conducting a background search on Howard will not find that he was ever charged or “convicted with these crimes.”

Howard voluntarily rescinded his teaching license, which allows him to reapply to teach, McGraw said. He resigned in 2018 and was never suspended from the school.

In the related federal civil rights lawsuit, Howard’s attorney has asked for a new trial, contending the $44 million jury award was “excessive.”

Court records show Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth found the young woman who sued Howard, identified as T. R., was entitled to a judgment because “the undisputed conduct includes the touching of an erogenous area of her body on at least three separate occasions, (2) the totality of the physical and non-physical misconduct in this case occurred repeatedly over the course of two school years and included multiple instances of physical misconduct, and (3) it is undisputed that Defendant Howard touched Plaintiff in a way that amounted to criminal sexual contact on at least one occasion.”

A pretrial court order in the federal case stated in part that Howard’s criminal plea was based on a Sept. 1, 2017, incident in which Howard hugged T.R. and then grabbed her buttocks in his classroom.

“By entering his guilty plea, Defendant Howard admitted that he intentionally touched an intimate part of T.R.’s body, and that he did so either to arouse or gratify his sexual desire or in a way that intruded on T.R.’s bodily integrity or personal safety,” the order states.

Howard also was accused of abusing his power as an educator and FFA mentor to intimidate his female students to stay silent and complicit in their own sexual exploitation. At least one member of the Las Cruces High School faculty was also faulted for failing to report students’ complaints about his behavior. Several other young women who filed claims have settled out of court for undisclosed amounts.