State v. Mayes, A-1-CA-34359

Background

John Mayes (then 17) was tried and convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, aggravated burglary, tampering with evidence, unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, fraudulent use of a credit card, and attempted residential burglary for the beating death of Dr. James Nordstrom.
After seven days of trial, jurors began deliberations Friday; after ~7 hours the judge (over objection) inquired whether further deliberation on Count 1 (murder) would be fruitful and requested verdict forms for counts the jury had resolved.
The jury returned verdict forms Friday acquitting Mayes of voluntary manslaughter (a lesser-included offense) and guilty on Counts 2–6; the foreperson told the judge the jury was still deliberating on first- and second-degree murder.
The court kept deliberations open over the weekend; Monday the jury returned not guilty on first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, but guilty of second-degree murder; each juror was polled and confirmed the verdicts.
Mayes challenged (1) that the judge’s inquiry coerced the jury and the manslaughter form operated as an acquittal of all murder charges; (2) that his pretrial statements should have been suppressed because, as a youthful offender, he did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive rights; and (3) that delinquency convictions should be vacated because he was sentenced as an adult for youthful-offender offenses.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: it found no coercion or invalid acquittal, upheld the district court’s denial of suppression (waiver was voluntary under the totality of circumstances), and affirmed adult sentencing for delinquent counts given the court’s proper youthful-offender adult sentencing authority.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Mayes's Argument	Held
Jury coercion by court inquiry during deliberations	Judge’s limited inquiry was permissible and left jury discretion intact	Inquiry coerced a guilty verdict and suggested the court’s preference, forcing a premature decision	No coercion; inquiry was limited, jury continued deliberating, and later poll confirmed verdicts
Effect of manslaughter acquittal on murder counts (automatic acquittal of greater offenses)	Jury’s manslaughter form was not a final verdict on greater offenses because jury said it was still deliberating; verdicts became final only when read and polled in open court	The not-guilty manslaughter form required acquittal of second- and first-degree murder per the instruction sequence	No automatic acquittal; foreperson clarified jury was still deliberating and no final verdict on murder counts was accepted until jury’s later poll and reading in open court
Suppression of custodial statements (youthful-offender waiver standard)	Waiver was knowing, intelligent, voluntary under §32A-2-14 factors (age, education, custody, manner/length of questioning, demeanor, prior waiver)	Mayes lacked capacity to waive (expert testimony on developmental impairment and reactive attachment disorder)	Waiver upheld: district court credited officer testimony and recordings, rejected expert opinion, and found totality of circumstances supported voluntary waiver
Sentencing delinquency counts after adult sentence for youthful-offender offenses	Once court properly sentences as adult for youthful-offender offenses, it may also impose adult sentences on remaining delinquency counts	Delinquency convictions should be vacated if sentenced as adult for youthful-offender counts	Affirmed adult sentencing on delinquent counts; Montano precedent supports adult sanctions for all offenses in same case when youthful-offender adult sentence imposed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rickerson, 95 N.M. 666, 625 P.2d 1183 (N.M. 1981) (court inquiry into jury progress falls within duty to assure a verdict but must preserve jury discretion)
State v. McCarter, 93 N.M. 708, 604 P.2d 1242 (N.M. 1979) (judge’s coercive handling of jury can violate due process)
State v. Laney, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (inquiry is permissible if it leaves jury discretion to continue deliberating; coercion analysis considers context and court conduct)
State v. Phillips, 396 P.3d 153 (N.M. 2017) (court has discretion to clarify ambiguous jury responses; polling is the ultimate expression of verdict at discharge)
State v. Montano, 120 N.M. 218, 900 P.2d 967 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (when juvenile is sentenced as an adult for youthful-offender offenses, adult sanctions may apply to other offenses in same case)
State v. Horton, 57 N.M. 257, 258 P.2d 371 (N.M. 1953) (judge must consider gravity, defense, complexity, and deliberation time before intervening with jury)
State v. Juan, 148 N.M. 747, 242 P.3d 314 (N.M. 2010) (failure to properly respond to a jury question can create an impermissible impression and be reversible error)