2013 NMCA 060
N.M.2013Background
- Sergeant Trujillo arrested Defendant and magistrate court charged him with aggravated DWI and driving left of center; first complaint was dismissed without prejudice for failure to attend a pretrial conference.
- A second, refiled complaint failed to comply with Rule 6-506A(C); a non-jury trial began with Trujillo as first witness.
- Defendant sought to voir dire the complaints during Trujillo's direct testimony; Judge Naranjo halted voir dire to hear direct testimony and reserved ruling on admissibility.
- During cross-examination, Defendant showed Rule 6-506A(C) violations; Judge Naranjo granted suppression and dismissed the charges with prejudice.
- State appealed to the district court; amended final order nunc pro tunc claimed acquittal; district court treated as a de novo trial; double jeopardy issue arose.
- Judge Naranjo testified that suppression plus directed verdict effectively resulted in acquittal; the magistrate court order did not accurately reflect events.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does suppression and dismissal constitute acquittal for double jeopardy? | State contends no acquittal; appeal allowed. | Defendant contends acquittal bars further prosecution and appeal. | Yes; magistrate acquittal bars appeal. |
| Does Tapia control the double jeopardy result here? | State relies on Tapia for retrial permissible on non-acquittal grounds. | Defendant argues Tapia does not apply; other cases govern. | Tapia inapplicable; Lizzol/Marquez govern and prohibit retrial. |
| Was the district court’s de novo posture proper given an acquittal? | State argues de novo review is allowed absent acquittal. | Defendant asserts acquittal bars de novo review. | De novo review barred; acquittal precludes retrial. |
| Did the district court err in treating suppression as non-acquittal for purposes of appeal? | State maintains suppression was not an acquittal ruling on guilt. | Defendant maintains acquittal-like effect applied. | Acquittal effect applicable; errors review not sustainable. |
| What is the appropriate remedy on appeal from magistrate court? | State seeks to proceed on district court appeal. | Defendant seeks dismissal of State’s appeal. | Remand to district court to dismiss the State’s appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736 (1990) (double jeopardy barred retrial when court’s ruling was an evidentiary acquittal)
- State v. Lizzol, 2007-NMSC-024 (2007) (acquittal prohibits appellate review of the underlying evidentiary ruling)
- State v. Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031 (2012) (district court’s suppression leading to dismissal can constitute acquittal)
- State v. Montoya, 2008-NMSC-043 (2008) (final order on procedural grounds can be appealable unless it results in acquittal)