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 convicted of three counts of felony murder and one count each of aggravated burglary and conspiracy to commit aggravated burglary. Before sentencing, the Defendant requested a new trial, arguing that the jury instructions on felony murder were deficient because they failed to include instructions on provocation (para 1).

Procedural History

• District Court of Santa Fe County, July 25, 2017: Granted Defendant's motion for a new trial based on allegedly deficient jury instructions (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued against the Defendant's motion for a new trial and filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the district court's order granting a new trial (para 1).
• Defendant-Appellee (Ortiz): Sought a new trial based on the failure to instruct on provocation in the felony murder jury instructions (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's motion for a new trial based on the timing of the motion and the grounds cited for a new trial (paras 2-3).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the district court's order granting a new trial and remanded the case for reinstatement of the verdict and entry of a judgment and sentence (para 4).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, per Justice Bacon, found that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant the Defendant's motion for a new trial because the motion was filed more than seven months after the verdict, which was beyond the ten-day period prescribed by Rule 5-614(C). The Court noted that the motion for a new trial was not based on newly discovered evidence, nor did the district court establish a different time requirement within the ten-day period. The Court addressed this jurisdictional defect sua sponte, emphasizing that jurisdictional defects cannot be waived and may be raised at any time. Consequently, the Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for reinstatement of the verdict and entry of judgment and sentence (paras 2-4).