State v. Webb, 35,411

Background

In Feb 2013 a hidden USB camera in the victim’s bathroom produced videos showing the victim (~17) undressing; Webb was arrested and charged (Webb I) based on camera videos dated Feb 19 & 22, 2013.
After arrest Webb admitted recording the victim and said he downloaded videos to a shared laptop; the laptop was searched in March 2013, returned in June, then later produced additional videos when the mother accessed it.
Forensic exam of the laptop in Sept 2014 revealed three additional videos dated Jan 1–30, 2013; the State later indicted Webb (Webb II, May 2015) on counts based on those laptop videos.
The State unsuccessfully sought to join Webb II with Webb I; the district court denied a pretrial motion to dismiss Webb II for failure to join, and this interlocutory appeal followed.
The court of appeals held the offenses in Webb I and Webb II were subject to mandatory joinder under Rule 5-203(A) but concluded the State could move to join post-indictment and pretrial; therefore dismissal of Webb II was not required and the denial of dismissal was affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Webb's Argument	Held
Whether the offenses in Webb I and Webb II had to be joined under Rule 5-203(A)	Joinder is mandatory because offenses are same/similar character and involve same victim and scheme	Admitted offenses are joinder-eligible but argued State failed to join at outset and thus forfeited ability to prosecute later charges	Held: Offenses were subject to mandatory joinder under Rule 5-203(A) (joinder required)
Whether the State’s failure to include laptop-based charges in the original indictment bars later prosecution	The State could move to join post-indictment and pretrial; Gonzales allows post-indictment joinder opportunities	Argued Gonzales bars piecemeal prosecution when State knew of charges and failed to join them initially, so Webb II must be dismissed	Held: The State was permitted to seek joinder post-indictment and pretrial; failure to join in the initial indictment did not automatically bar later joinder or require dismissal
Whether actual prosecutor knowledge of uncharged offenses is a prerequisite to a compulsory-joinder bar	State: Rule 5-203 contains no explicit prosecutorial-knowledge limitation; joinder inquiry does not require proof of prior knowledge	Webb: Points to facts suggesting prosecutors knew of laptop videos before first indictment and thus should be barred under Gonzales	Held: Prosecutorial knowledge is not explicitly required by Rule 5-203, and court did not decide the knowledge issue because joinder motion filed pretrial cured the concern
Appropriate remedy for Rule 5-203 violation (dismissal)	Dismissal is not appropriate where the State moves to join offenses pretrial after indictment	Webb: Dismissal required under Gonzales when prosecution had opportunity to join and failed to do so, causing prejudice and inefficiency	Held: Dismissal of Webb II is not appropriate here because the State sought joinder pretrial; court affirmed denial of dismissal

Key Cases Cited

State v. Gonzales, 301 P.3d 380 (N.M. 2013) (failure to join offenses can bar subsequent piecemeal prosecution under Rule 5-203 in certain circumstances)
State v. Gallegos, 152 P.3d 828 (N.M. 2007) (explaining mandatory joinder policy to avoid piecemeal prosecutions)
State v. Paiz, 249 P.3d 1235 (N.M. 2011) (treating improper joinder under Rule 5-203(A) as a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Foster, 75 P.3d 824 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (interpretation of court rules reviewed de novo)
State v. Riordan, 519 P.2d 1029 (N.M. Ct. App. 1974) (example of offenses being similar in character when repeated acts target the same person/community)