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 multiple counts of criminal sexual penetration (CSP), criminal sexual contact (CSC), kidnapping, interference with communications, and incest. During the first trial, a mistrial was declared due to the State's failure to disclose additional lapel recordings from officers, which were not properly tagged and subsequently destroyed. The Defendant moved to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds and also moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds, both of which were denied by the district court. The Defendant was retried and convicted on several counts of CSP, CSC, and interference with communications (paras 2-3, 5-6).

Procedural History

• District Court, August 2015: Mistrial declared due to the State's failure to disclose additional lapel recordings (para 5).
• District Court, Two months after the mistrial: Denied Defendant's motion to bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds and motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds (para 6).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Asserted that his right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by being subject to retrial and that his constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated (para 1).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State of New Mexico): Argued that retrial was not barred by double jeopardy because the mistrial was declared at the Defendant's behest and that the prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to the level that would bar retrial. Additionally, contended that the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was not violated (paras 8-9, 14).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's right to be free from double jeopardy was violated by being subject to retrial.
• Whether the Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decisions, allowing the retrial and rejecting the claim that the Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Jacqueline R. Medina, with Chief Judge M. Monica Zamora and Judge Jennifer L. Attrep concurring, held that:
  Regarding Double Jeopardy: The retrial was not barred by double jeopardy because the mistrial was declared upon the Defendant's motion, and the prosecutorial misconduct did not meet the criteria for barring retrial under the Breit test. The court found no evidence of willful disregard by the prosecutor regarding the non-disclosure of additional lapel recordings (paras 8-13).
  Regarding Speedy Trial: The Defendant's right to a speedy trial was not violated. The Court applied the Barker v. Wingo balancing test, considering the length of delay, reasons for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right, and prejudice to the Defendant. The Court found that while there was a delay, it was not so prejudicial as to violate the Defendant's speedy trial rights, especially considering the complexity of the case and the reasons for delay (paras 14-30).