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 driving in Santa Fe County when a police officer clocked his car speeding and began pursuing him. The Defendant stopped his car just after crossing into Rio Arriba County, where he was arrested on an outstanding warrant. During an inventory search of the car, police discovered drugs and drug paraphernalia. The Defendant was charged in Santa Fe County with two counts of trafficking in a controlled substance by possession with intent to distribute (headnotes, para 1).
Procedural History
- District Court, November 19, 2003: The trial court dismissed the charges with prejudice, concluding that venue was improper in Santa Fe County and should have been in Rio Arriba County, where the drugs were discovered (paras 1, 3-4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (State): Argued that venue was proper in Santa Fe County because trafficking by possession with intent to distribute is a continuing offense, and the crime occurred in both counties through which the Defendant traveled while in possession of the drugs (paras 1, 28).
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that venue was improper in Santa Fe County and that the charges should have been filed in Rio Arriba County, where the drugs were discovered. The Defendant also argued that double jeopardy barred the State's appeal and that prosecutorial misconduct justified dismissal with prejudice (paras 1, 18, 24).
Legal Issues
- Was the State's notice of appeal timely filed?
- Does double jeopardy bar the State's appeal?
- Was venue proper in Santa Fe County for the charges of trafficking in a controlled substance?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals held that the State's notice of appeal was timely filed (paras 2-17).
- The Court ruled that double jeopardy did not bar the State's appeal (paras 18-24).
- The Court concluded that venue was proper in Santa Fe County and reversed the trial court's dismissal of the charges, remanding the case for further proceedings (paras 25-33).
Reasons
Per Fry J. (Pickard and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Timeliness of Appeal: The Court found that the State's notice of appeal was timely because the original dismissal order was unappealable on its face, and the State's post-dismissal motions suspended the finality of the order until the trial court issued an amended dismissal order. The amended order accurately reflected the trial court's ruling on venue, and the State filed its appeal within 30 days of that order (paras 2-17).
Double Jeopardy: The Court held that double jeopardy did not bar the State's appeal because the trial court's dismissal for lack of venue was not an adjudication on the merits and did not terminate jeopardy. The Court also rejected the Defendant's argument that prosecutorial misconduct justified dismissal with prejudice, finding no evidence of misconduct (paras 18-24).
Venue: The Court determined that trafficking by possession with intent to distribute is a continuing offense, and venue was proper in any county through which the Defendant traveled while in possession of the drugs. The Court distinguished this case from Marsh v. State, noting that the trial court lacked authority to dismiss the charges based on a preference for a different venue. The Court concluded that venue was properly established in Santa Fe County by a preponderance of the evidence (paras 25-33).