State v. Neal, 33,552

Background

On Sept. 24, 2011, officers investigating a storage unit discovered materials consistent with a mobile meth lab (acetone, drain cleaner, muriatic acid, matches, pills, a backpack) and a black scale with meth residue; Defendant Joseph Neal was charged with trafficking methamphetamine (by manufacturing) and possession of drug paraphernalia.
An eyewitness (Ameera Itani) testified she and Neal regularly bought pseudoephedrine, that she dropped Neal at his apartment with pseudoephedrine on Sept. 23, and picked him up hours later when he had meth; she identified a backpack seized from the storage unit as Neal’s.
At the first trial the district court directed a verdict on the child-abuse charge; deliberations were interrupted when a juror was injured, producing a mistrial. Neal was retried and convicted of trafficking and possession of paraphernalia.
On appeal Neal raised: ineffective assistance of counsel (conflicts), insufficiency of evidence, double jeopardy (unitary conduct and retrial after mistrial), and error in denying a mistrial after the court mistakenly referenced a dismissed child-abuse charge during voir dire.
The Court of Appeals affirmed: ineffective-assistance claims lacked a developed record for direct-review relief and were better raised in habeas; evidence supported both convictions; double jeopardy did not bar convictions or retrial; the court’s prompt curative instruction cured the voir dire misstatement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Ineffective assistance — defense counsel’s concurrent representation of a State witness	State: record does not show counsel’s representation produced an actual conflict; facts insufficient for relief on direct appeal	Neal: counsel’s concurrent representation of Itani created an actual conflict and prejudiced his defense	No relief on direct appeal — record insufficient to establish a prima facie conflict; remand/habeas recommended for developed facts
2. Ineffective assistance — failure to move to disqualify prosecutor	State: prosecutor’s prior representation of Neal was not litigated in the trial record; facts undeveloped	Neal: prosecutor previously represented him and should have been disqualified; counsel ineffective for not moving	No relief on direct appeal — record inadequate; counsel’s omission more properly litigated in habeas; court criticized prosecutor for not disclosing potential conflict
3. Sufficiency of the evidence for trafficking (manufacturing) and paraphernalia	State: testimony (Itani) and agent’s expertise supplied reasonable inferences that Neal manufactured meth and possessed paraphernalia; scale with residue and backpack link Neal to items	Neal: evidence insufficient to prove manufacturing or possession beyond reasonable doubt	Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to verdict, a rational jury could infer manufacturing and possession of paraphernalia
4. Double jeopardy / retrial after mistrial; and denial of mistrial for court’s voir dire misstatement	State: juror injury justified mistrial as manifest necessity; separate factual bases supported separate convictions; prompt curative instruction cured voir dire error	Neal: convictions punish same conduct; mistrial not manifestly necessary; voir dire misstatement prejudiced jury	Affirmed — (a) convictions not barred (independent factual bases); (b) mistrial was manifestly necessary due to juror unavailability; (c) prompt correction cured voir dire error; no reversible prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Patterson v. LeMaster, 130 N.M. 179, 21 P.3d 1032 (N.M. 2001) (right to effective assistance of counsel)
Rael v. Blair, 141 N.M. 232, 153 P.3d 657 (N.M. 2007) (conflict-of-interest standard; actual conflict and presumed prejudice)
Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 (N.M. 1991) (double-description analysis—unitary conduct and legislative intent)
State v. Dylan J., 145 N.M. 719, 204 P.3d 44 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (deferential review of counsel performance; standards for ineffective assistance)
State v. Barnett, 125 N.M. 739, 965 P.2d 323 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (risk when prosecutor prosecutes a former client)
State v. Newman, 109 N.M. 263, 784 P.2d 1006 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989) (mistrial standards; curative instructions and retrial)