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 charged with violating New Mexico statutes related to driving under the influence and traffic offenses. During the bench trial, the presiding judge recused herself without explanation after the State's first witness testified, halting the trial. The case was reassigned to another judge, who decided to restart the trial. The Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court of Bernalillo County: The court dismissed the criminal complaint against the Defendant on double jeopardy grounds (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the trial should continue under Rule 7-106(J) NMRA, as the first trial never concluded. The State contended that double jeopardy was not implicated because the Defendant implicitly consented to a mistrial (paras 4-6).
• Appellee (Defendant): Argued that double jeopardy protections were violated because the trial was effectively stopped without a manifest necessity for a mistrial, and the proceedings should not be restarted (paras 6-9).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial could be resumed under Rule 7-106(J) NMRA without violating double jeopardy protections.
• Whether double jeopardy was implicated due to the recusal of the initial judge and the subsequent decision to restart the trial.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case on double jeopardy grounds (para 11).

Reasons

Per Hanisee J. (Medina and Yohalem JJ. concurring):

The Court found that the trial was effectively stopped when the initial judge recused herself, and the subsequent judge's decision to restart the trial constituted a mistrial. The Court determined that there was no manifest necessity to justify a mistrial, and thus, double jeopardy protections were implicated. The Court rejected the State's argument that the trial could simply continue under Rule 7-106(J) NMRA, as the successor judge did not certify familiarity with the record or determine that proceedings could be completed without prejudice. The Court concluded that the dismissal was appropriate because the record did not support a finding of manifest necessity to restart the trial (paras 4-10).