This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was convicted of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer. During the trial, a video from an officer's lapel camera was shown to the jury, which included a portion where the Defendant received Miranda warnings. The jury viewed this portion during deliberations, raising questions about its impact on the verdict. Additionally, the Defendant was not informed of his right to appeal at the initial sentencing hearing and was not given the opportunity to speak at either sentencing hearing (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated fleeing a law enforcement officer (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury's viewing of the entire video, including the Miranda warnings, constituted plain error affecting the trial's integrity. Also contended that the district court failed to advise him of his right to appeal and did not allow him to speak at sentencing, violating his right of allocution (paras 2, 4-7).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Conceded that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to address the sentencing court, rendering the sentence invalid (para 7).
Legal Issues
- Did the jury's viewing of the entire video, including the Miranda warnings, constitute plain error?
- Did the district court's failure to advise the Defendant of his right to appeal and to allow him to speak at sentencing constitute reversible error?
Disposition
- The Court affirmed the conviction in part and reversed the sentence, remanding for a new sentencing hearing (para 7).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Duffy and Wray JJ. concurring): The Court found that the jury's viewing of the entire video, including the Miranda warnings, did not constitute plain error as it did not impact the verdict's validity. The video was admitted into evidence, and the disputed portion was not prejudicial or relevant to the jury's decision on aggravated fleeing (paras 3-4). Regarding the right to appeal, the Court noted that the Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal and was appointed a public defender, thus suffering no prejudice from the initial failure to advise him of his rights (para 6). However, the Court agreed with the State's concession that the Defendant was not given the opportunity to speak at sentencing, violating his right of allocution, and thus reversed the sentence and remanded for a new sentencing hearing (para 7).