State v. Pacheco
2017 NMCA 14
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant (Pacheco) was charged with fraud for allegedly inflating invoices to induce Aguilar to accept a trailer and equipment as full payment for a $43,000 sale; affidavit alleged Defendant admitted altering invoices.
- A magistrate found probable cause and issued an arrest warrant; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 5-601(B) NMRA before the State presented any trial evidence.
- Defendant relied on sworn statements and pleadings from related civil proceedings (including a UCC-1 filing) arguing Aguilar did not rely on misrepresentations and suffered no pecuniary loss.
- The district court granted dismissal, concluding undisputed civil-record evidence showed the State could not prove an essential fraud element (reliance/pecuniary loss) beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The State appealed; the Court of Appeals considered whether double jeopardy barred the appeal and whether the dismissal improperly resolved factual disputes pretrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pacheco) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether double jeopardy bars the State's appeal | Dismissal was procedural so jeopardy had not attached; appeal permitted | Dismissal was effectively an acquittal on the merits; appeal barred | Jeopardy had not attached (trial had not begun and no witness sworn); appeal allowed |
| Whether Rule 5-601(B) allowed pretrial dismissal here | Court should not decide disputed factual issues pretrial; State could present evidence of reliance | Civil pleadings and UCC-1 constitute undisputed admissible evidence showing no reliance or loss, making dismissal proper | Dismissal was improper because the State had not presented evidence and trial was necessary to resolve disputed facts |
| Whether the district court resolved a pure question of law | Characterizing it as a pure legal issue was incorrect—facts remained in dispute and State could offer evidence | Framed as a pure legal determination based on undisputed civil filings and admissions | The matter was not a pure legal issue; the unresolved factual dispute (reliance/value) required trial |
| Whether later civil assertions (e.g., continued security interest or repayment) preclude criminal prosecution | State: such later civil positions do not negate that property was obtained by alleged fraud at the time of the release | Defendant: civil filings show no relinquishment or reliance, so no criminal liability as a matter of law | Civil filings asserting continued rights are irrelevant to whether the release was obtained by fraud; repayment or subsequent civil claims do not bar prosecution |
Key Cases Cited
- Foulenfont v. State, 895 P.2d 1329 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (pretrial dismissal permissible when guilt turns on purely legal issue and facts are undisputed)
- Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (U.S. 1978) (jeopardy in bench trial attaches when first witness is sworn)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1975) (policy against repeated attempts to convict; protection from multiple prosecutions)
- State v. Baca, 352 P.3d 1151 (N.M. 2015) (distinguishes acquittals on the merits from procedural dismissals for double jeopardy purposes)
- State v. Angel, 51 P.3d 1155 (N.M. 2002) (jeopardy in bench trials attaches when court begins to hear evidence)
- State v. Garcia, 594 P.2d 1186 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (statements of counsel are not evidence)
- State v. Gomez, 70 P.3d 753 (N.M. 2003) (pretrial dismissal inappropriate where state could reasonably assert availability of additional evidence)
- State v. Higgins, 762 P.2d 904 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (subsequent repayment or restitution does not bar prosecution for obtaining value by fraud)