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 charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery after an incident involving physical harm. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the attempted murder charge but convicted the Defendant of aggravated battery (para 1).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of aggravated battery, and the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted murder charge (para 1).
- Court of Appeals: Proposed to reverse the aggravated battery conviction due to the admission of inadmissible testimony and certified the case to the Supreme Court to determine whether the State could retry the Defendant for attempted murder (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of attempted murder, and retrial for attempted murder would violate Section 30-1-10 of the New Mexico Statutes and the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions (paras 2-3).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial for attempted murder because the jury did not acquit the Defendant of that charge, and the mistrial on the attempted murder count allows for a retrial (paras 4, 8).
Legal Issues
- Whether the State may retry the Defendant for attempted murder after a mistrial on that charge (para 1).
- Whether the retrial for attempted murder violates the Double Jeopardy Clauses of the U.S. and New Mexico Constitutions (para 2).
Disposition
- The Defendant's conviction for aggravated battery was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 1).
- The State was permitted to retry the Defendant for attempted murder (para 1).
Reasons
Per Ransom J. (Baca C.J. and Minzner J. concurring):
The Court held that Section 30-1-10 of the New Mexico Statutes does not apply because it precludes retrial of a greater offense only after an acquittal, which did not occur in this case (para 3). The Double Jeopardy Clauses protect against successive prosecutions for the same offense, but they do not bar retrial after a mistrial caused by a hung jury, as the second trial is considered a continuation of the first (paras 4, 8).
The Court distinguished this case from precedents like Green v. United States and Price v. Georgia, where implied acquittals barred retrials, noting that here the jury explicitly stated it could not reach a verdict on the attempted murder charge (paras 5-7). The mistrial on the attempted murder charge, requested by the defense, forecloses any double jeopardy claim (para 8).
The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of attempted murder, as the two offenses have distinct statutory elements. Aggravated battery requires unlawful touching or force, while attempted murder requires specific intent and an overt act, neither of which are elements of the other offense (para 11). Thus, the State is entitled to retry the Defendant for attempted murder (para 12).