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 tried for multiple offenses related to a carjacking where the victim was beaten and shot to death. After the State rested its case, the trial court directed verdicts of acquittal on several charges due to insufficiency of evidence but denied the defendant's motions for acquittal on remaining charges, including first-degree felony murder. The jury, after receiving complex instructions, submitted conflicting verdict forms to the trial judge, who then had an ex parte communication with the jury leading them to revise their verdicts. The revised verdicts found the defendant guilty on several counts, including felony murder (paras 3-14).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Stanley Whitaker, District Judge: Ordered a new trial on all charges on which the jury had returned final verdicts of guilty after a post-trial hearing on the issue of the trial judge's ex parte communication with the jury (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• State of New Mexico: Argued that the trial court's grant of a new trial was in error (para 2).
• Defendant Lloyd Aguilar: Asserted that while the grant of a new trial was appropriate, double jeopardy bars retrial on the counts of murder and armed robbery (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court's order for a new trial was an abuse of discretion (para 22).
• Whether retrial of the counts on which the jury ultimately returned guilty verdicts would constitute double jeopardy (para 47).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court held that the trial court's new trial order was not an abuse of discretion and that retrial of the counts on which the jury ultimately returned guilty verdicts would not constitute double jeopardy (para 2).

Reasons

• Per BACON, Justice, with NAKAMURA, C.J., VIGIL, MAES, and CLINGMAN, JJ., concurring:
  The trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a new trial due to the trial judge's ex parte communication with the jury, which violated procedural rules and potentially prejudiced the defendant. This communication was case-related and not merely ministerial, thus creating a presumption of prejudice that the State failed to rebut (paras 32-46).
  Retrial on the murder and armed robbery counts would not violate double jeopardy principles. The preliminary verdict forms submitted by the jury were not final and were not rendered in open court and accepted by the court. The final verdict forms, which were accepted by the court, did not indicate any deadlock or acquittal on the charges in question, thus not triggering double jeopardy protections (paras 50-55).