AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 custodial interference, a fourth-degree felony, for unlawfully interfering with the parental rights of her daughter's father. The case arose after the Defendant's marriage to an attorney who had been active in the Fifth Judicial District, prompting the appointment of a special prosecutor to avoid potential conflicts of interest (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• State v. Cherryhomes, 121 N.M. 496, 913 P.2d 1300: The New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction, holding that the assistant district attorney who filed the criminal information lacked proper appointment as a special prosecutor, thereby negating the trial court's jurisdiction (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff (State of New Mexico): Argued that the assistant district attorney, acting under the supervision of a duly appointed special prosecutor, had the authority to prosecute the case. The State contended that the appointment of the special prosecutor substantially complied with statutory requirements and that delegation of prosecutorial duties was permissible under agency principles (paras 1, 11-14).
• Defendant (Debra Anne Cherryhomes): Asserted that the assistant district attorney lacked proper appointment as a special prosecutor, rendering the trial court without jurisdiction. The Defendant argued that the appointment of the special prosecutor failed to comply strictly with statutory requirements and that the delegation of prosecutorial duties was impermissible (paras 4, 6, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the appointment of the special prosecutor complied with the statutory requirements under NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-23.1 (para 1).
• Whether a special prosecutor may delegate prosecutorial duties to an assistant district attorney (para 1).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for consideration of other issues on appeal (para 21).

Reasons

Per Ransom J. (Franchini and Minzner JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the appointment of the special prosecutor substantially complied with the statutory requirements under NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-23.1. The statute does not require strict compliance unless the legislative intent would be frustrated, which was not the case here. The appointment was in writing, filed with the court, and the special prosecutor took the required oath of office (paras 5, 7-10).
• The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the appointment was invalid because it did not specifically reference the case. It found no evidence that the special prosecutor acted outside the scope of the appointment, and the Defendant failed to raise this issue at trial (paras 8-10).
• The Court determined that the delegation of prosecutorial duties by the special prosecutor to an assistant district attorney was permissible under general principles of agency law. The statute does not explicitly or implicitly prohibit such delegation, and the assistant district attorney acted under the supervision of the special prosecutor (paras 11-14).
• The Court distinguished this case from prior decisions, such as State v. Baca and State v. Hollenbeck, where the prosecuting attorneys lacked proper authority. Here, the assistant district attorney was duly appointed, took an oath of office, and was accountable to the public (paras 16-20).