State v. Montoya, 150 N.M. 415

Background

Defendant was convicted by a jury in New Mexico for kidnaping, conspiracy to commit kidnaping, CSP II, and aggravated burglary following an incident on March 2, 2006 in Dona Ana County.
Victim testified Defendant, the driver of a work truck, restrained and sexually assaulted her while another man held her hands, leading to the next-day police report and identification of Defendant.
Defendant was charged with kidnaping, conspiracy to kidnaping, aggravated burglary (with a weapon or during a battery), and CSP II during the commission of a felony or while aided or abetted.
He challenged the convictions on speedy-trial grounds, a claimed improper voir dire interpreter swearing, and double jeopardy grounds for CSP II and kidnaping.
The district court denied relief on all grounds; trial resulted in convictions on all charged offenses.
The Court of Appeals remanded to vacate one of the CSP II or kidnaping convictions for double jeopardy and affirmed the remainder.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial rights violated by delay?	Montoya argues twenty-one month delay prejudiced defense and violated Barker/Garza standards.	Montoya contends Garza altered burden-shifting and presumptive prejudice rules retroactively.	No violation; Barker factors balance in State's favor with slight prejudice.
Was trial by jury preserved when interpreter sworn-in for voir dire?	State's interpreter verification impacted jury trial under oath.	Defense preservation violated, warranting mistrial.	Issue not preserved; even if preserved, no prejudice found.
Double jeopardy: CSP II and kidnaping are unitary; may punish both?	State asserted CSP II could be proven during kidnaping; convictions should stand.	Unitary conduct bars dual punishment.	Convictions tainted by unitary conduct; vacate the lesser offense.

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1972) (four Barker factors govern speedy-trial review)
State v. Garza, 146 N.M. 499, 212 P.3d 387 (N.M. 2009) (modifies presumptive-prejudice guidelines and burden-shifting)
State v. Brown, 134 N.M. 356, 76 P.3d 1113 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2003) (speedy-trial analysis framework in NMCA decisions)
State v. Laney, 134 N.M. 648, 81 P.3d 591 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2003) (departures in complexity affecting delay analysis)
State v. Crain, 124 N.M. 84, 946 P.2d 1095 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1997) (unitary conduct analysis in CSP II and related offenses)
State v. Pisio, 119 N.M. 252, 889 P.2d 860 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1994) (unitary conduct and double-descriptions context)
State v. Armendariz, 140 N.M. 712, 148 P.3d 798 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2006) (Blockburger analysis when unitary conduct questioned)
State v. Swafford, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 (N.M. Supreme Court, 1991) (double-description and legislative intent framework)
State v. Padilla, 140 N.M. 333, 142 P.3d 921 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2006) (double jeopardy and multiplicity under Blockburger)
State v. Franco, 137 N.M. 447, 112 P.3d 1104 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2005) (Blockburger test and legislative intent in multiple punishments)
State v. Tsethlikai, 109 N.M. 371, 785 P.2d 282 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 1989) (early treatment of CSP II and kidnapping convictions)
State v. Kersey, 148 N.M. 381, 237 P.3d 683 (N.M. Supreme Court, 2010) (remedial disposition when double jeopardy occurs)
State v. Armijo, 136 N.M. 723, 104 P.3d 1114 (N.M. Court of Appeals, 2005) (elements-focused approach for related offenses)