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 stopped by a Border Patrol Agent for erratic driving and released upon a state police sergeant's command. After driving off erratically again, she was stopped a second time but fled before the sergeant arrived. A high-speed chase ensued, during which the Defendant reversed her car toward a deputy, who had to jump out of the way. She was eventually stopped at a roadblock, physically removed from her car, and resisted arrest.
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant pleaded no contest to six misdemeanor charges, including resisting arrest, and the trial court dismissed the felony charge of aggravated assault on a peace officer, finding it arose from the same act as the misdemeanors.
- State v. Alingog, 116 N.M. 650, 866 P.2d 378 (Ct. App. 1993): The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the dismissal constituted fundamental error and that the jury should have been allowed to determine guilt or innocence on the felony charge.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the felony charge of aggravated assault on a peace officer was a greater included offense of the misdemeanor charge of resisting arrest, arising from the same act. She contended that her plea to the misdemeanor precluded prosecution on the felony under double-jeopardy principles.
- State: Asserted that the aggravated assault and resisting arrest were separate offenses and not unitary conduct. It argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the felony charge and invoked the doctrine of fundamental error to justify appellate review of the unpreserved issue.
Legal Issues
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the felony charge of aggravated assault on a peace officer based on double-jeopardy principles.
- Whether the Court of Appeals properly applied the doctrine of fundamental error to review an unpreserved issue raised by the State.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the felony charge.
Reasons
Per Ransom J. (Franchini and Frost JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the State failed to preserve the issue of whether the prosecution was a single or successive one, as it did not raise the relevant legal authority (e.g., Ohio v. Johnson) at trial. The trial court's decision to dismiss the felony charge was based on the evidence and arguments presented, and no miscarriage of justice occurred.
The Court rejected the application of the doctrine of fundamental error, emphasizing that it is reserved for cases where a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. The State's failure to preserve its argument did not constitute such a miscarriage, and retrying the Defendant on the felony charge after a "rehearsed trial" would itself be unjust.
The Court concluded that the Defendant's double-jeopardy rights were not violated, as the trial court properly determined that the felony charge arose from the same conduct as the misdemeanors to which she pleaded no contest.