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 violated a domestic violence protective order issued under the Family Violence Protection Act by following his wife in his car, attempting to make her pull over, and trying to talk to her. The protective order prohibited contact and required the parties to stay at least 100 yards apart. The Defendant, an Albuquerque police officer, was arrested and later found in contempt of court for this violation (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, July 21, 1994: The Defendant was found in contempt of court for violating the domestic violence protective order and sentenced to 60 days in jail, with 50 days suspended on the condition of no further violations and participation in anger management counseling (para 4).
- District Court, July 17, 1995: The court dismissed stalking and harassment charges against the Defendant, finding that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred prosecution for these charges because they arose from the same conduct as the contempt conviction (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar subsequent prosecution for stalking and harassment because the contempt conviction and the criminal charges involve different elements under the Blockburger test (paras 5, 9).
- Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the stalking and harassment charges were based on the same conduct as the contempt conviction, and therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the subsequent prosecution (paras 5, 9).
Legal Issues
- Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar the prosecution of stalking and harassment charges when the Defendant has already been convicted of contempt for the same conduct?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the stalking and harassment charges and remanded the case for reinstatement of the charges (para 20).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Apodaca and Wechsler JJ. concurring):
The Court applied the Blockburger test, which examines whether each offense requires proof of an element that the other does not. The contempt conviction for violating the protective order required proof of a single act of abuse or contact, while the stalking and harassment charges required proof of a pattern of conduct and additional elements such as intent to cause fear or emotional distress. Since the offenses contained distinct elements, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar the subsequent prosecution (paras 7-15).
The Court also noted that the Family Violence Protection Act explicitly allows for both contempt proceedings and criminal charges arising from the same incident, indicating legislative intent to permit multiple remedies (para 17).
The Defendant's argument to shift the burden of proof to the State in successive prosecution cases was rejected. The Court found no need to deviate from the established Blockburger framework in this context (paras 18-19).