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 felony aggravated battery against a household member with great bodily harm, misdemeanor aggravated battery against a household member without great bodily harm, and unlawful taking of a motor vehicle. The State filed its witness list late and provided the Defendant with a CD containing audio recordings of witness statements just days before the trial. The Defendant's counsel requested a continuance to review the CD, which was denied by the judge. During the trial, the Defendant's counsel refused to participate, leading to a conviction that was appealed on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel and argued for a bar to retrial under double jeopardy grounds due to judicial conduct (paras 2-3, 5, 9, 15).

Procedural History

• State v. Hildreth, 2019-NMCA-047: The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction based on ineffective assistance of counsel but rejected the argument that retrial was barred under double jeopardy grounds due to judicial conduct (para 15).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the late disclosure of evidence by the State and the denial of a continuance by the judge deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel and that the judge's conduct during the trial should bar retrial on double jeopardy grounds (paras 4-5, 15).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Acknowledged the late discovery but argued that sanctions were not appropriate. If sanctions were to be imposed, a continuance was suggested as a less punitive measure than preventing the State's witnesses from testifying (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether judicial conduct at trial may result in a bar to retrial under the double jeopardy clause of the New Mexico Constitution (para 1).
• Whether the district court judge’s conduct in this case bars the Defendant’s retrial (para 1).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that judicial conduct may result in a bar to retrial under the New Mexico Constitution and that the judicial conduct in this case bars the Defendant’s retrial (para 1).

Reasons

• Per VIGIL, Chief Justice, with BACON, THOMSON, and VARGAS, Justices concurring:
  The Court determined that the Breit test, which traditionally applied to prosecutorial misconduct, also applies to judicial conduct. This conclusion was based on the language of the Breit test itself and its history, which supports its application to judges (paras 20-24).
  The Court found that the judge’s conduct in denying a continuance and proceeding with the trial despite the late disclosure of evidence and the defense counsel's refusal to participate was so unfairly prejudicial to the Defendant that it could not be cured by means short of a mistrial or a new trial, thus meeting the first prong of the Breit test (paras 26-39).
  The Court concluded that the judge knew or should have known that his conduct was improper and prejudicial, satisfying the second prong of the Breit test (paras 42-44).
  Finally, the Court determined that the judge acted in willful disregard of the resulting mistrial, retrial, or reversal by allowing the trial to proceed under the circumstances, thus meeting the third prong of the Breit test and barring retrial (paras 45-49).