285 P.3d 637
N.M.2012Background
- City charged Marquez with Careless Driving and DWI after a traffic stop by Officer Rute; BAC was 0.09%.
- Trial in municipal court led to convictions; de novo district court trial followed with admitted video and blood test evidence.
- District court suppressed all DWI evidence and dismissed the DWI charge, finding lack of reasonable suspicion to broaden the stop, while keeping the Careless Driving conviction.
- City appealed directly under NMSA 1978, § 35-15-11, arguing the suppression ruling and appeal rights were proper.
- Court held double jeopardy bars retry and review on merits; urged pretrial suppression adjudication and clarified timing rules for suppression motions.
- Court announced prospective Rule 5-212(C) pretrial filing requirement for suppression motions and mandated pretrial suppression adjudication absent good cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does double jeopardy bar the City’s appeal of the DWI suppression ruling? | City argues appeal is permitted; appeal rights survive suppression ruling. | Marquez argues double jeopardy prevents retry or appeal after acquittal. | Barred; appeal dismissed. |
| Should suppression motions be adjudicated before trial? | City contends timing mechanics allow trial-based resolution. | Marquez contends suppression ruling can occur during trial. | Pretrial adjudication required absent good cause. |
| Did the suppression order function as an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes? | City asserts no acquittal occurred to bar appeal. | Marquez contends the ruling effectively acquits on DWI. | Yes, it functioned as an acquittal; triggers double jeopardy bar. |
| What procedural rules govern suppression adjudication and appellate rights going forward? | City seeks clarity on appellate path for suppression rulings. | Marquez seeks limitation consistent with double jeopardy. | Trial courts must adjudicate suppression pretrial; revise rules to avoid pretrial acquittal consequences. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lizzol, 141 N.M. 705 (N.M. 2007) (double jeopardy precludes appeal when suppression leads to acquittal; evidentiary ruling linked to guilt/innocence)
- State v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736 (N.M. 1990) (distinguishes jurisdictional suppression rulings from trial evidence suppression)
- State v. Heinsen, 138 N.M. 441 (N.M. 2005) (permitted pretrial appeal of suppression; supports prosecutorial interlocutory route)
- State v. Katrina G., 144 N.M. 205 (N.M. 2008) (motion to suppress generally not required pretrial; context for timing rules)