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 State prosecuted Defendant, Kelson Lewis, under a five-count indictment, focusing on Count 1, which charged him with criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM). The charge was amended from second to third degree, and battery was included as a lesser offense. The jury was instructed on three possible verdicts for Count 1 but did not receive a verdict form for a not guilty verdict on CSCM specifically. During deliberations, the jury expressed uncertainty about proceeding to the lesser charge if unable to reach a unanimous decision on CSCM. The district court instructed the jury to consider the lesser charge only if they had reasonable doubt about the guilt on Count 1. Eventually, the jury indicated deadlock on CSCM, leading to a mistrial declaration for Count 1 (paras 2-7).

Procedural History

• District Court: Declared a mistrial on Count 1, finding manifest necessity due to the jury's inability to reach a unanimous agreement on CSCM (para 7).
• Court of Appeals, State v. Lewis, 2017-NMCA-056: Affirmed the district court's order, allowing retrial on CSCM (para 8).
• Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico: Reviewed the Court of Appeals' decision and addressed additional issues regarding jury instructions on lesser included offenses (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the district court failed to properly poll the jury on Count 1, claiming that retrial on CSCM would subject him to double jeopardy in violation of constitutional protections (para 8).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Supported the district court's procedure, asserting that the jury was adequately polled through notes exchanged during deliberations and that a retrial on CSCM does not violate double jeopardy protections (para 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether retrial of Defendant on the greater charge of CSCM would violate constitutional protections against double jeopardy, given the district court's handling of the jury deadlock (para 9).
• How a district court must instruct a jury on the manner and order in which it is to deliberate on a count with lesser included offenses to resolve ambiguity in existing jury instructions (para 9).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of Defendant’s motion to bar retrial of the greater offense of CSCM (para 39).
• Adopted a modified acquit first approach for jury instructions on counts with lesser included offenses, directing future juries that they may not return a verdict on a lesser included offense unless they unanimously find the defendant not guilty on the greater offense (para 40).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring a mistrial on all offenses under Count 1, as it had established a clear record that the jury was deadlocked on CSCM (paras 10-20). The Court also addressed the ambiguity in existing jury instructions regarding the order of deliberation on counts with lesser included offenses. It adopted a modified acquit first approach, allowing juries to deliberate in any order but requiring a not guilty verdict on the greater offense before accepting a verdict on the lesser included offense. This decision aims to provide clarity and consistency in jury instructions across different types of offenses (paras 21-38).