AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 initially charged with voluntary manslaughter following an incident that led to a mistrial due to a jury deadlock. Subsequently, the State amended the charge to second-degree murder, which led to disputes over procedural rights, including the Defendant's right to peremptorily excuse the presiding judge (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, April 14, 2005: Declared a mistrial after a jury deadlock on the voluntary manslaughter charge (para 2).
• District Court, May 2, 2005: Granted the State's motion to amend the charge to second-degree murder (para 3).
• District Court, August 15, 2005: Found probable cause for the second-degree murder charge during a preliminary hearing (para 4).
• District Court, November 17, 2005: Convicted the Defendant of the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter (para 5).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the amended information constituted a new proceeding, thereby renewing her right to peremptorily excuse the presiding judge. She contended that her notice of excusal was timely and that the proceedings before the judge were void due to the improper denial of her excusal request (paras 6, 9, 16).
• Appellee (State): Asserted that the proceedings following the mistrial were a continuation of the original case, and the Defendant's notice of excusal was untimely because the judge had already exercised discretion in the case. The State also argued that the amendment of charges did not nullify prior proceedings (paras 10, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the filing of an amended criminal information adding a new charge renews the Defendant's right to peremptorily excuse the presiding judge under Rule 5-106 NMRA.
• Whether the Defendant's notice of excusal was timely and effective under the circumstances.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to strike the Defendant's notice of excusal as untimely (para 19).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Pickard and Fry JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that the filing of an amended criminal information adding a new charge effectively nullifies the original information and constitutes a new proceeding, thereby renewing the Defendant's procedural rights, including the right to excuse the presiding judge (paras 8-9, 14).
• However, the Court found that the Defendant's notice of excusal was untimely because it was filed after the judge had exercised discretion during the preliminary hearing on the new charge. Rule 5-106(A) prohibits excusal after a judge has performed a discretionary act (paras 15-18).
• The Court distinguished this case from precedents cited by the State, emphasizing that the addition of a new charge fundamentally altered the nature of the proceedings, unlike cases where charges were merely reinstated or corrected (paras 10-13).
• The Court concluded that the Defendant's procedural rights were renewed upon the filing of the amended information, but her failure to timely assert her right to excuse the judge rendered her notice invalid (paras 14-18).