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 case involves the State's appeal against the dismissal of charges against Stewart Alsop, the Defendant, related to a drunk driving prosecution. The dismissal was based on due process concerns arising from the State's appeal, which delayed the trial with an empaneled jury for over seven months. This delay was primarily due to the State's attempts to appeal the district court's ruling suppressing breath test results, which was deemed to have no right of appeal during the trial.

Procedural History

• State v. Alsop, 2011-NMCERT-012, ___ N.M. ___, ___ P.3d ___ (No. 31,511, Dec. 21, 2011): The Supreme Court denied certiorari on the State's application for interlocutory appeal, affirming that the State had no right to appeal the district court's decision in the middle of the trial.

Parties' Submissions

• State: Argued that the dismissal of the charges was not warranted, claiming the case was unique due to a recent Supreme Court decision (Bullcoming v. New Mexico) and that there was no outside interference with the jury that could have affected the verdict. The State also contended that manifest necessity justified a mistrial and that double jeopardy does not prevent retrial.
• Defendant: Objected to the State's interlocutory appeal, citing case law indicating such an appeal was not available to the State. Argued that the State's actions, including the appeal attempts, undermined the integrity of the judicial proceedings and prejudiced the Defendant's rights.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's dismissal of charges against the Defendant due to due process concerns arising from the State's delayed appeal was justified.
• Whether the unique circumstances cited by the State, including the application of Bullcoming v. New Mexico, rendered the case exceptional.
• Whether double jeopardy prevents retrial in this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the charges against the Defendant.

Reasons

• Per Roderick T. Kennedy, J. (Celia Foy Castillo, Chief Judge, and Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring): The Court found that the State's appeal, which it had no right to, delayed the trial unnecessarily and prejudiced the Defendant's rights, warranting dismissal of the charges. The Court rejected the State's argument that the case was unique due to the recent Supreme Court decision in Bullcoming v. New Mexico, noting that the district court's application of Bullcoming did not make this case exceptional. The Court also dismissed the State's claims of no outside interference with the jury and manifest necessity for a mistrial, emphasizing that the delay caused by the State's appeals interfered with the jury's role and that the State controlled the delay. Finally, the Court agreed with the district court's discretion in dismissing the charges with prejudice as a sanction against the State for undermining the integrity of the proceedings, thus preventing reprosecution under double jeopardy principles.