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 the first-degree murder of the victim and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, claiming self-defense. The incident occurred in Alamogordo, New Mexico, where the Defendant shot the victim, who was seated in his living room. The Defendant alleged that the shooting was necessary to protect himself (paras 4-5).
Procedural History
- State v. Breit, No. CR-88-175 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 2, 1990): The trial court granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss all charges on double-jeopardy grounds due to extreme prosecutorial misconduct during the first trial.
- State v. Breit, No. CR-88-175 (N.M. Dist. Ct. Sept. 12, 1990): The trial court denied the State's motion to reconsider the dismissal.
- State v. Breit, No. 12,638 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 25, 1991): The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's dismissal, holding that a new trial would not violate double jeopardy.
- Breit v. State, 113 N.M. 1, 820 P.2d 435 (1991): The Supreme Court of New Mexico denied the Defendant's motion for certiorari.
- Second Trial (N/A): The Defendant was convicted again and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the extreme prosecutorial misconduct during the first trial violated his double-jeopardy rights under the New Mexico Constitution, barring his retrial (paras 6-7, 9).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Contended that the double-jeopardy clause did not apply because the prosecutor did not intentionally provoke a mistrial, and the Defendant's second trial was valid under the federal standard established in Oregon v. Kennedy (paras 2, 10).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant's second trial violated the double-jeopardy clause of the New Mexico Constitution due to prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial.
- Whether the standard for barring retrial under the New Mexico Constitution should differ from the federal standard established in Oregon v. Kennedy (paras 2, 9-10).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Defendant's convictions and barred any further prosecution on double-jeopardy grounds (para 49).
Reasons
Per Franchini J. (Ransom and McKinnon JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the prosecutorial misconduct in the first trial was pervasive, outrageous, and demonstrated a willful disregard for the Defendant's right to a fair trial. The misconduct included inflammatory statements, improper arguments, and repeated violations of court instructions, which cumulatively denied the Defendant a fair trial (paras 41-45).
The Court rejected the narrow federal standard from Oregon v. Kennedy, which bars retrial only when prosecutorial misconduct is intended to provoke a mistrial. Instead, it adopted a broader standard under the New Mexico Constitution, barring retrial when prosecutorial misconduct is so prejudicial that it necessitates a mistrial or reversal, and the prosecutor acts with willful disregard of the consequences (paras 32-35).
Applying this standard, the Court concluded that the prosecutor's actions in the first trial were not merely negligent but demonstrated a conscious and purposeful decision to undermine the Defendant's right to a fair trial. The Court emphasized that the double-jeopardy clause protects defendants from being subjected to repeated prosecutions due to prosecutorial overreach (paras 46-48).
The Court also noted that the trial judge's failure to control the prosecutor's conduct contributed to the unfairness of the trial but ultimately held that the prosecutor's misconduct alone warranted barring retrial (paras 47-48).