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 three offenses: criminal sexual penetration (CSP) in the second degree, kidnapping, and aggravated assault with intent to commit a violent felony. During the trial, the jury was instructed on lesser-included offenses for all charges. After extensive deliberations, the jury reported being deadlocked on all counts. The trial judge sought clarification on the jury's votes, which revealed ambiguity regarding the CSP charge. The judge declared a mistrial after further deliberations failed to resolve the deadlock (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- District Court, April 1997: The trial court declared a mistrial on the CSP charge and ruled that the State could retry the Defendant on CSP, false imprisonment, and assault. The Defendant's motion for a verdict of not guilty on the CSP charge was denied (paras 5-6).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury had unanimously acquitted him of the CSP charge, and retrying him would violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. He sought a verdict of not guilty on the CSP charge (paras 1, 6).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury had not reached a unanimous verdict of acquittal on the CSP charge, and the mistrial allowed for a retrial on that charge (paras 1, 6).
Legal Issues
- Whether the Defendant was acquitted of the CSP charge, thereby precluding a retrial under the double jeopardy clause.
- Whether the Defendant had the right to appeal the trial court's order permitting a retrial on the CSP charge before the retrial occurred.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order, holding that the Defendant was not acquitted of the CSP charge and that the State could retry him on that charge (para 28).
Reasons
Per Hartz CJ (Bosson and Armijo JJ. concurring):
Right to Appeal: The Court held that the Defendant had a constitutional right to appeal the trial court's order permitting a retrial on double jeopardy grounds. The Court reasoned that the New Mexico Constitution guarantees an aggrieved party the right to one appeal, and the Defendant's double jeopardy claim could not be adequately addressed after a retrial (paras 7-17).
No Acquittal on CSP Charge: The Court found that the jury's deliberations and votes on the CSP charge were ambiguous and did not constitute a unanimous verdict of acquittal. The trial judge acted within her discretion to declare a mistrial and allow for a retrial. The Court emphasized that the trial judge has the authority to ensure clarity and unanimity in jury verdicts and to reject ambiguous or uncertain verdicts (paras 18-26).
Rule 11-606(B) Compliance: The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that the trial judge's questioning of the jury foreman violated Rule 11-606(B). The Court clarified that the rule applies to inquiries into the validity of a verdict, not to determining whether a verdict exists in the first place (para 26).
Conclusion: The Court concluded that the trial judge's actions were appropriate and that the State could proceed with a retrial on the CSP charge (paras 27-28).