AI Generated Opinion Summaries
Decision Information
Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure - cited by 3,785 documents
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,882 documents
Decision Content
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 convicted of speeding in magistrate court. The conviction was appealed to the district court, where it was reversed on the grounds that the officer who issued the citation and prosecuted the case in magistrate court lacked the authority to prosecute the case in district court (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- Magistrate Court: Convicted the Defendant of speeding (para 2).
- District Court: Reversed the conviction, holding that the officer lacked authority to prosecute the case in district court (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that she was entitled to recover her costs for the magistrate court, district court, and appellate proceedings as the prevailing party, citing Rule 12-403(A) NMRA 2003 and the case of Kirby v. N.M. State Highway Dep't (paras 3-4).
- Plaintiff-Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Can a criminal defendant recover costs against the State when the appeal results in a reversal?
Disposition
- The Defendant's motion to recover costs was denied (para 8).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Castillo and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court held that there is no statutory provision in New Mexico allowing a criminal defendant to recover costs against the State in a criminal case. Rule 12-403(A) NMRA 2003 permits the prevailing party to recover costs unless otherwise provided by law, but costs in criminal cases were unknown at common law and can only arise from statutory enactment. The Court distinguished the Defendant's reliance on Kirby v. N.M. State Highway Dep't, noting that Kirby involved a civil case and relied on a statute applicable only to civil actions (paras 3-4).
The Court emphasized that statutes relating to taxable costs must be strictly construed. Section 31-12-6 NMSA 1978 authorizes the assessment of costs only against convicted defendants in criminal cases, and there is no statutory authority for awarding costs against the State in such cases. The Legislature's omission of language allowing costs to be awarded against the State reflects a conscious decision to exclude such a provision (paras 5-7).
Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to recover costs was denied (para 8).