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

• Defendant Danny Surratt, a former law enforcement officer, was charged with criminal sexual penetration of a minor following an investigation. Due to a conflict of interest, the district attorney for the Fifth Judicial District appointed another district attorney as a special prosecutor. After a mistrial and a conviction in a second trial, the appointment of a second special prosecutor by the first special prosecutor was challenged by the defendant, arguing it was invalid and divested the court of jurisdiction over the proceedings.

Procedural History

• State v. Surratt, 2015-NMCA-039, ¶ 16, 346 P.3d 419: The Court of Appeals reversed the defendant's conviction, holding that the second special prosecutor's appointment was invalid, thereby divesting the district court of jurisdiction.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Respondent: Argued that the district attorney serving as special prosecutor at the second trial lacked authority to prosecute the case because his appointment by the first special prosecutor was invalid, thus divesting the Lea County District Court of jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings.
• Plaintiff-Petitioner: Contended that a properly appointed special prosecutor has all the authority and duties of the appointing district attorney, including the authority to name another special prosecutor if unable to proceed for an ethical reason or other good cause.

Legal Issues

• Whether a properly appointed special prosecutor has the authority to appoint another special prosecutor when an ethical conflict or other good cause prevents continued participation in the criminal proceeding.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Defendant’s conviction.

Reasons

• Per DANIELS, Justice, with BARBARA J. VIGIL, Chief Justice, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, and EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice concurring:
  The Court held that a properly appointed special prosecutor is vested with all the authority and duties of the appointing district attorney to prosecute the case for which they were appointed, including the authority to appoint another special prosecutor if unable to proceed due to an ethical reason or other good cause (paras 1, 10-32).
  The Court found that the legislative intent of NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-23.1, was to allow the appointment of any practicing member of the New Mexico bar, public or private counsel, as a special prosecutor, and that this authority extends to the appointment of another district attorney as a special prosecutor (paras 13-19).
  The Court concluded that District Attorney Martwick, as the duly appointed special prosecutor, had the full authority to appoint District Attorney Chandler as a special prosecutor in her place, and that Chandler had the authority to prosecute the defendant's case (paras 20-32).