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 driving under the influence and improper use of registration. During a bench trial via video conference, the trial ended in a mistrial declared sua sponte due to the prosecutor revealing breath alcohol test results before their admission into evidence. The Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a retrial would violate his double jeopardy rights, as there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial and it was caused by prosecutorial misconduct (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that retrial would violate his double jeopardy rights under both the United States and New Mexico Constitutions, contending there was no manifest necessity for the mistrial and that it was caused by prosecutorial misconduct (para 3).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether defendants prosecuted in metropolitan court have the right to appeal the denial of a motion to dismiss after a mistrial (para 1).
• Whether the 2019 amendment to NMSA 1978, Section 34-8A-6, allows for appeals from interlocutory orders like a denial of a motion to dismiss in the context of a mistrial (paras 4-6).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the court found no constitutional or statutory provision allowing the Defendant to appeal from a metropolitan court’s order denying his motion to dismiss and permitting retrial (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Henderson, Bogardus, and Medina, unanimously concluded that the right to appeal is confined to appeals from final judgments and not interlocutory orders like a denial of a motion to dismiss. The Court distinguished the case from previous jurisprudence by noting that the constitutional provision allowing an absolute right to one appeal applies only to district courts, not metropolitan courts. Furthermore, the Legislature has not enacted a statute providing defendants the right to immediately appeal from metropolitan court orders denying motions to dismiss after a mistrial. As such, defendants in metropolitan court may only appeal to the Court of Appeals from final judgments. Judge Henderson, in a special concurrence, expressed concern that the amendment to Section 34-8A-6 may have inadvertently diminished protections against double jeopardy for defendants facing certain charges in metropolitan court (paras 4-13).