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 granted a motion to suppress by the district court, which also declared the Defendant "not guilty on all counts" in a post-trial decision.

Procedural History

• District Court of Chaves County, Freddie J. Romero, District Judge: Granted Defendant's motion to suppress and declared Defendant "not guilty on all counts."

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Initially appealed the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to suppress and the order denying the State's motion for reconsideration.
• Defendant-Appellee (John Monafo): Successfully argued for the motion to suppress at the district court level, leading to a declaration of "not guilty on all counts."

Legal Issues

• Whether the State's appeal of the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to suppress and the order denying the State's motion for reconsideration is barred by principles of double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion to suppress and the order denying the State’s motion for reconsideration.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael E. Vigil and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, the Court of Appeals decided to affirm the district court's decisions based on the principles of double jeopardy, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in City of Santa Fe v. Marquez. The State conceded that under Marquez, the district court's actions in granting the motion to suppress and declaring the Defendant "not guilty on all counts" prohibited any further prosecution, leading to the State not opposing the Court of Appeals' proposed disposition to affirm.