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

• In February 2006, a colt being trained by the Defendant died, leading to his indictment on August 31, 2006, for extreme cruelty to animals, a fourth-degree felony. After two trials, the first resulting in a mistrial due to a hung jury and the second in an acquittal of the felony charge and a mistrial on a misdemeanor charge of cruelty to animals, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss prior to a third trial. The motion was based on statute of limitations and double jeopardy grounds, arguing that the Defendant had been acquitted of the only crime charged and had never been charged with misdemeanor cruelty to animals. The district court granted the motion to dismiss.

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County, Fernando R. Macias, District Judge: Granted Defendant's motion to dismiss on the grounds that misdemeanor cruelty to animals is not a lesser included offense of felony extreme cruelty to animals and that prosecution on the misdemeanor was barred by the statute of limitations.

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (State): Argued that misdemeanor cruelty to animals is a lesser included offense of felony extreme cruelty to animals, allowing for the continuation of prosecution within the limitations period. Alternatively, argued that the Defendant waived the statute of limitations defense by not objecting to the jury instruction on cruelty to animals at the second trial.
• Defendant-Appellee (Greg Collier): Contended that he had been acquitted of the only crime for which he was charged, that he had never been charged with misdemeanor cruelty to animals, and that the elements of the misdemeanor charge are mutually exclusive of the felony charge, thus barring new prosecution by the statute of limitations.

Legal Issues

• Whether misdemeanor cruelty to animals is a lesser included offense of felony extreme cruelty to animals.
• Whether the statute of limitations barred trial on the misdemeanor charge.
• Whether subsequent prosecution on the misdemeanor charge following acquittal on the felony charge would violate the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy.

Disposition

• The district court's decision to dismiss the case was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Linda M. Vanzi authoring the opinion, held that cruelty to animals is a lesser included offense of extreme cruelty to animals, contrary to the district court's finding. However, the Court agreed with the district court's dismissal, albeit on different grounds, concluding that prosecuting the Defendant for the misdemeanor charge after acquittal on the felony charge would violate double jeopardy principles. The Court distinguished between the "strict elements" test and the "cognate approach" for determining lesser included offenses, applying the latter and finding that the misdemeanor charge was indeed a lesser included offense of the felony charge. Despite this, the Court affirmed the dismissal based on double jeopardy concerns, noting that the misdemeanor and felony charges were essentially the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, and thus, the Defendant could not be retried on the misdemeanor charge following his acquittal on the felony charge.