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 indicted for trafficking a controlled substance (cocaine), child abuse, conspiracy to commit trafficking, and possession of drug paraphernalia, related to events occurring on or about October 19, 2010. Prior to the execution of a search warrant on this date, officers conducted three uncharged controlled buys with the assistance of a confidential informant (CI). The Defendant filed a motion in limine to exclude information provided by the CI as inadmissible hearsay. During the trial, evidence of these controlled buys was introduced, and the jury found the Defendant guilty on all counts. The Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial, which the district court granted on grounds raised sua sponte, related to the introduction of evidence from the controlled buys and the lack of notice to the Defendant regarding this evidence (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that the district court erred in granting a new trial based on the introduction of evidence from prior controlled buys and the lack of notice to the Defendant. Contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a new trial on grounds raised sua sponte after the ten-day window post-verdict (paras 8-13).
• Defendant-Appellee: Contended that the State may not appeal the district court’s order granting a new trial and argued that the district court’s grant of a new trial was premised on the fact-based admission of evidence under Rule 11-404(B)(2), which is discretionary and does not present a legal question (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the State has the ability to appeal the order granting a new trial (para 8).
• Whether the district court had jurisdiction to grant a new trial on grounds raised sua sponte more than ten days after the verdict (para 12).
• Whether the grant of a new trial was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances of this case (para 14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s grant of a new trial (para 26).

Reasons

• Judges: Timothy L. Garcia, James J. Wechsler, and J. Miles Hanisee concurred in the opinion authored by Judge Garcia.
  The Court found that the State could appeal the order granting a new trial because the district court’s ruling was based on a conclusion that prejudicial legal error occurred due to the lack of reasonable notice to the Defendant about the introduction of evidence from prior controlled buys under Rule 11-404(B) (paras 8-11).
  The Court held that the district court had jurisdiction to grant a new trial on grounds raised sua sponte beyond the ten-day window post-verdict, as the Defendant had invoked the district court’s jurisdiction by timely filing a motion for a new trial. The Court concluded that the district court exercised its discretion appropriately in granting the new trial based on different grounds from those raised by the moving party (paras 12-13).
  The Court affirmed the district court’s discretion in granting a new trial, agreeing that the State failed to provide adequate notice of its intent to use evidence of prior controlled buys under Rule 11-404(B) and that this error was sufficiently prejudicial to warrant a new trial. The Court did not address whether the evidence of prior controlled buys could have been admissible under Rule 11-404(B) for another purpose, as the district court had not made a ruling on this issue due to the lack of notice (paras 14-25).