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 arrested in April 1998 for a probation violation, during which police found two scorched pipes in his coat pocket. A field test revealed no drugs, and the Defendant was charged with misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, to which he pled guilty. Subsequent laboratory testing of the pipes revealed trace amounts of cocaine residue, leading to a felony charge of cocaine possession in October 1998 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court, April 1998: The Defendant pled guilty to misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia and was sentenced to 30 days in jail and 334 days of probation (para 2).
- District Court, February 1999: The Defendant was convicted of felony possession of cocaine and sentenced to four years in prison, enhanced due to prior felony convictions (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the felony prosecution violated double jeopardy protections, as he had already been convicted of a related misdemeanor. Additionally, he contended that the jury should have been instructed on the lesser charge of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, consistent with his defense that he did not knowingly possess cocaine (paras 3, 5, 7).
- State: Asserted that the felony prosecution was permissible under the jurisdictional exception to double jeopardy, as the magistrate court lacked jurisdiction over felony charges. The State also opposed the Defendant's request for a jury instruction on the lesser charge, arguing it was precluded by the prior misdemeanor conviction (paras 3, 5, 10, 20).
Legal Issues
- Did the felony prosecution for cocaine possession violate the Defendant's double jeopardy rights?
- Was the Defendant entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser charge of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia?
Disposition
- The conviction for felony possession of cocaine was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial (para 21).
Reasons
Per Armijo J. (Bosson and Sutin JJ. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The court held that the felony prosecution did not violate double jeopardy protections due to the jurisdictional exception. The magistrate court, which handled the misdemeanor charge, lacked jurisdiction over felony offenses, and thus the prior conviction did not bar the subsequent felony prosecution (paras 8-11).
Jury Instruction on Lesser Charge: The court found that the Defendant was entitled to a jury instruction on the lesser charge of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. Applying the test from State v. Meadors, the court determined that the evidence supported the lesser charge, and the elements distinguishing the lesser and greater offenses were sufficiently in dispute for a jury to rationally acquit on the felony and convict on the misdemeanor. The district court's refusal to provide the instruction was an error (paras 12-19).
Double Jeopardy and Lesser-Included Offenses: The court rejected the State's argument that double jeopardy precluded the Defendant from requesting the lesser-included offense instruction. It reasoned that the Defendant's request was consistent with his defense strategy and did not violate double jeopardy principles (para 20).
The case was remanded for a new trial, with instructions that any conviction for the lesser charge would be vacated as redundant of the prior misdemeanor conviction (para 21).