1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: A ug us t 23, 201 8 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5391 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 MATI AS LOZ A, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 INT ERLO CUTORY APPEAL FROM THE DIST RICT CO URT OF OTE RO 11 COU NTY 12 A ng ie K. S ch ne id er , D ist ri ctJu dg e
13 L. He len Bennett, P .C. 14 L ind a H el enBe nne tt 15 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 16 fo r Appe llant 17 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 18 Charles J. Gutierr ez, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Justice. 3 { 1} Inthi s c as e, w e co nsi de r w he the r a de fe ndant’ s r ac ke te er ing c onv icti ons 4 foreclose a subs equent prosecu t i o n for the cr im es alleged as the predicate offenses 5 in the earlier rackete ering case. Matias Loza (D efendant) w as previouslyconvicted 6 of rac keteering, c ontrary to NMS A 1978, Se ction 30 -42-4 (C) (2002, am ended 201 5), 7 and consp iracy

to com m it racketee ring, contrar

y to S ection 30-42-4(D), for conduct 8 th athe en ga ge d i n a s p artof a cri m in al en te rp ris e ref erre d t o a s t he AZ Boys. Sta te 9 v. L oza , 201 6- N MC A -0 88, ¶ ¶ 1- 2, 382 P
. 3d 9 63. I n su ppor t of the r ac ke te er ing 10 ch ar ge s, the S ta te a lle ge d th e unde rl y ing pr ed ic at e of fe nse s of m

ur de r, a rs on, a nd 11 br ib ery of

a pu bl ic off

ic er. See NMSA 1 97 8, § 30 -4 2- 3( A)(1 ), (A)(9 ), (A)(1 4) , (D) 12 (2 00 9) (de fin in g “ ‘pat te rn of r ack et e e r i n g act iv it y ’” as “ en ga gi ng in at l eas t t wo 13 incidents o f rackete ering,” which m ay include m

urder, arson, or bribery , am ong o ther 14 of fe nse s)
. T he St at e now se ek s to prose cu te D ef en dant for the cr im es a lle ge d a s th e 15 predicate off

enses in the earlier prosecution—m urder, arson, and bribery

—as we ll as 16 oth er r el at ed c harg es . D ef

en dant c ont en ds that the co nst itu tio na l pr osc ri pti on a ga ins t 17 doub le j eo pardy as se t fo rth in the Fi fth A m en dm en t to the U nit ed S tate s C onst itu tio n 18 an d Artic le II , Se ct ion 15 of the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on f or ec los es thi s su

bse que nt 19 prosecution
. W e conclude otherw ise and therefore affir m the district c our t ’s d en ial2

1 of D ef en dant’ s m oti on t o di sm iss
. 2 I. BACKGRO UND 3 { 2} O n N ove m

be r 1, 201 1, of

fic er s di sc ove re d D ef

en dant s m el lin g stro ngl y of 4 ga sol ine a nd c ow er ing unde r a fi fth- w he el tr ai le r. O ne hundre d y ar ds aw ay , a Su zu ki 5 au tom obi le c ont ai nin g the hum anr em ai ns o f Ri ch ar d V al de z w as f ull y e ngul fe d in 6 fl am es . Sh oe pr int s inthe a re a w er e co nsi ste nt w iththe sho es D ef en dant w as w eari ng. 7 A ft er c la im ing th at he ha d bee n br ough t t o th e ar ea by atr uc k, w hic h he ha d j ust 8 escaped af

ter being shot at byits occupants, Def endant offered one of the off icers 9 $ 4 0 ,0 0 0 t o l et h i m g o fr ee . Fo l l o wi n g a mor e e x t en s i v e i n v es t i g at i o n i n t o De fe n d an t ’s 10 background and his reasons for being so near the m urder scene, detectives ascertained 11 that Def

endant was conn ected with the AZ Boy s gang, and gathered further 12 intellig ence f

rom anonym ous so urces that D efendant had in fact served as a hitm an 1 3 a n dh a dk i l l e dVa l d e z i nc o n n e c t i o n wi t h t h e g a n g ’s dr u g t r a f f i c k i n g a c t i v i t y. 14 { 3} T he S ta te f

ile d ase ri es of

ind ic tm en ts and nol le pr ose qui s ul tim at el y r es ult ing 15 in tw o se parate c as es a ga ins t D ef en dant. I n C as e N o. D -1 215- CR -2 012- 0032 0 16 (r ac ke te er ing c as e) , D ef en dant w as c harg ed

w itha nd c onvi ct ed

of ra ck et ee ri ng and 17 co nspi ra cy

to co m m it ra ck et ee ri ng f

or c ondu ct spanni ng f

ro m N ove m be r 1, 200 7, to 18 May 15, 2012, based on at least two of the thre e p re d i cate offenses of first-degre e3

1 m ur de r, ars on , a nd br ib ery o f a pu bl ic off ic er. Se e ge ne ral ly NMS A 1978 , §§ 30 -42-1 2 to -6 (1980, as am ended through 2015 ) (Rac keteering Ac t). In Case N o. D -1215-CR3 2014 -00063 (m

urder ca se), De fendant wa s charged w ith the sam e cr im es that served 4 as the pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s inthe r ac ke te er ing c as e— fi rs t-d eg re e m ur de r, a rs on, a nd 5 br ibe ry of apub lic of

fi ce r— as w el l a s c onsp ir ac y to co m m it fi rs t- de gr ee m

ur de r an d 6 tw o c ount s of

tam pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce . In thi s int er loc uto ry ap pe al , a ri sin g f ro m the 7 m ur de r ca se , D ef

en dant arg ue s tha t his co nvi ct ion s in the r ac ke te er ing c as e fo re cl ose 8 the poss ibilityof convictio ns in this ca se because the subs equent prosecution violates 9 h i s r i g h tt o b e f

r e e f r o m d o ub l e je o p a r d y. 10 II. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 11 { 4} T his Co urt r ev ie w s c la im s in vol vin g a lle ge d vi ola tio ns of a def en dant’ s r igh t 12 to be free f

ro m do ub le jeop ard y

de no vo . State v. Swick, 201 2- N MS C- 018, ¶ 10, 279 13 P.3 d 74 7 (“ A d ou bl e jeop ard y ch al le ng e is a co ns ti tu ti on al qu es ti on of l aw whi ch we 14 reviewde novo.”). 15 III. DISC US SION 16 A. Fe deral D ouble Jeopardy A uth ority in R ack etee ring C ases 17 { 5} Both the United States Constituti on and th e N ew Mexico Constitu tion p rotect 18 ag ai nst doub le j eo pardy fo r the sa m e of fe nse . U
. S. Co nst . a m en d. V ( “N o pe rs on s ha ll4

1
. . . be subject f

or the sam e offense to be twice put in j eopardy of life or lim b.”) ; N. M. 2 C o n s t . a rt . I I , § 1 5 ( “[ N ]o r s h a l l a n y p e r s o n b e t w i c e p u t i n j e o p a r d y f o r t h e s a me 3 of fen se .” ). T he r igh t t o be f re e fr om double j eo pardy

pr ote ct s a

c ri m ina l de fe ndant 4 fr om be ing r etri ed

f or the sa m e of

fe nse a ft er ei the r ac qui tta l or c onvi ct ion( suc ce ssi ve 5 pr ose cu tio ns) a nd f

ro m be ing pun ished

tw ic e fo r the sa m e of fe nse ( m ult ipl e 6 puni shm ents). State v. L ynch , 200 3- N MS C- 020, ¶ 9, 134 N
. M. 139, 74 P. 3d 73. Ina 7 ca se li ke thi s, “ [w ] he re succ es si ve pr ose cu tio ns are a t st ak e, the guarante e se rv es a 8 co nst itu tio na l po lic y

of fi na lity fo r the de fe ndant’ s be ne fi t. T ha t po lic y pr ote ct s th e 9 ac cu se d f

ro m a tte m pts to rel it ig at e the f

ac ts unde rl y ing apr ior

a cquit ta l, a nd f

ro m 10 attem pts to secure additio nal puni shm ent after a prior conviction and sent ence. ” Sta te 11 v. Rodriguez , 200 5- N MS C- 019, ¶ 6, 138 N
. M. 21, 116 P
. 3d 9 2 ( quot ing Brown v. 12 O hio , 432 U
. S. 161 , 165 -6 6 (197 7) ). H ow ev er , “ the f ina lity guarante ed

by the D oubl e 13 Je opardy Cl au se is not abs olu te , but ins te ad m ust ac co m

m oda te the soc ie ta l i nte re st 14 in prosecuting and convictin g thos e w ho vio late the law .” Garrett v. United States , 15 471 U.S . 773, 796 (1985) (O’ Connor, J., concurring). 16 { 6} In addition to ot h er e lem ents, a succe ssful racketeer ing pros ecution requires 17 proof bey ond a reasonable doub t of at least tw o predicate offe nses, w hich are often 18 pr os ecu te d i n a pro ceed in g se pa rat e fro m th e su bs ta nt iv e rac ke te eri ng off en se . 15

1 D av id R
. Mc Co rm ac k, RIC O : R ac ke te er In flu en ce d Corr upt

O rgan iza tio ns , at

6. 15 2 (1 988)
. A s ar es ult , d ou ble j eo pardy c ha lle nge s are c om

m on i n r ac ke te er ing c as es . 3 Se em ing ly

w ith out e xc ep tio n, how ev er , c ourts h av e be enunr ec ep tiv e to the se 4 ch al le ng es . Se e id

. at 6.16 (collecting cases). “ Federa l courts have uniform ly held that 5 a def en dant m ay be co nvi ct ed se parate ly a nd s en te nc ed

c um ula tiv el y f or e nga gin g in 6 [r ac ke te er ing ] an d for c om m itt ing the c ri m es a lle ge d a s th e pr ed ic at es f or the 7 [rac ke te eri ng ] ch arg e. ” J e d S . Rak of f & Ho wardW . Gol ds te in , RIC OCi vi l an d 8 Cr im ina l L awand

Strate gy , at § 10.04[2] (1989). 9 { 7} A lth oughthe part ie s ag re e tha t thi s ca se inv olv es a suc ce ssi ve pr ose cu tio n f or 10 doub le j eo pardy

pur pose s, t he y

dis ag re e on the appr opr ia te a na ly sis to ap ply
. T he 11 St at e co nte nds tha t the U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Court ’ s de ci sio n in G arr et t and cases 12 int er pr et ing it ar

tic ula te the ap pr opr ia te f

ram ew ork f

or a na ly zi ng the double j eo pardy 13 iss ue in thi s c as e. D ef en dant’ s arg um en ts, on the oth er hand, a re pr em ise d on 14 j ur isp ru de nc e re le vant t o th e an al y sis of m ult ipl e puni shm en ts fo r the sa m e of fe nse 15 fo r pur

pose s of double j eo pardy . S p e c i f

i c a l l y , D e fe ndant arg ue s th at thi s C ourt sh oul d 16 ap ply the an al y sis se t fo rth in Sw aff ord v. Sta te , 199 1- N MS C- 043, 112 N
. M. 3, 810 17 P. 2d 12 23—a m

ultip le punish m ent case. As this is not a m ultip le punish m ent case, 18 Sw aff ord is ina ppl ic ab le
. Re co gni zi ng the uni que ly c om ple x na tur e of

r ac ke te er ing6

1 of fe nse s, w e ag re e w iththe S ta te that G arr et t a nd i ts p ro ge ny

se t f orth the appr opr ia te 2 fr am ew ork f

or de ci din g do ubl e j eo pardy iss ue s unde r the fe de ra l c onst itu tio n inthe 3 co nte xt o f co m

ple x st at uto ry sc he m es inv olv ing “ m

ult ilay er ed

c ondu ct , ” suc h a s th e 4 Ra ck et ee ri ng A ct . 5 { 8} In G arr et t , the S upr em e Co urt “ ca ut io n[ ed ] a ga ins t r ea dy

tr an spos iti on” of 6 doub le j eopardy

principles articulated in cases invo lving a singl e course of conduct 7 to the “ m

ultilay ered cond uct” t hat com prises crim inal activity in com plex statuto ry 8 sc he m es . 471 U
. S. at

789
. I n othe r w or ds, tr ad iti ona l do ubl e j eo pardy pr inc ipl es do 9 not lend them selves well t o i s s u es arising in the context of a statutory schem e that 10 re qui re s pr oof

of oth er vio la tio ns of law thr ough the use of vari ous pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s. 11 Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . E

spos ito , 912 F. 2d 60, 62 (3r d Cir
. 1990 ) (“ T he double j eo pardy 12 issues raised in conn ection with prosecution for a com poun d predicate offense, such 13 as r ac ke te er ing und er [the Ra ck et ee r In fl ue nc ed a nd C or ru pt O rg an iz at ion s A ct ] or 14 en ga gin g inac ont inu ing c ri m ina l e nte rp ri se ( CC E ) i nv i o l at i o no f th e Co m pr eh en siv e 15 D ru g Abuse P re ve nti on and C ontro l A ct of 197 0 do not f

it pr ec ise ly

w ith in the 1 6 a n a l yt i c l i n e s u s e di n o t h e r d o ub l e je o p a r d y c a s e s . ” ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) )
. Ac c o r d i n g l y, 17 the G a r re tt Co urt de cl ine d to str ic tly appl y the sa m e- el em en ts t es t art ic ula te d in 18 Blockburger v. United St ates , 284 U
. S. 299 , 304 ( 1932 ), or the le sse r- inc lud ed

-7

1 of fe nse fr am ew or

k ar tic ula te d in Brown , 432 U
. S. a t 16 7- 69, to the double j eo pardy 2 is su e p res en te d i n t ha t ca se . G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 77 9, 787 -9 0. 3 { 9} A t i ssu e in G arr et t wa s whether the defendant’ s earlier conviction for nar cotics 4 im porta tio n c oul d be use d a s a p red ica te of fe nse in a subs eque nt C CE pr ose cu tio n 5 witho ut

o f f e nd i ng h i s r i gh ta ga i ns td ou bl e j e op a r dy
. 4 71 U
. S
. a t7 75
- 77
. In 6 co nsi de ri ng the iss ue , the S upr em e Co urt i nstru ct ed : 7 Where the sam e conduct violates two statutory provisi ons, the first step 8 in the doub le j eo pardy a na ly sis is to d et er

m ine w he the r the 9 legislature—in thi s case Congress—intended that each violatio n be a 10 se parate of

fe nse . I f Co ngr es s in te nde d th at ther e be onl y one 11 offense—that is, a defendant could be c onvi cted under either statutory 12 pr ovi sio n f

or asin gle a ct , but

not und er both—the re w oul d be no 13 statut or

y auth or iz at ionf

or asub se que nt pro se cu tio n a ft er c onvi ct ionof 14 one of

the tw o pr ovi sio ns, a nd tha t w oul d e nd the double j eo pardy 15 an al y sis
. 16 Id

. at 7 7 8
. A n a l y z i n g t h e l a n g u a g e , s t r u c tu r e , a n dl e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o ry o f t he 17 Com prehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Con trol Act of 1 9 7 0 , t h e Cou rt 18 co nc lud ed

that C ongr es s in te nde d C CE to be adis tin ct of fe nse , pun ish ab le i na d dit ion 19 to , no t i n l ie u o f, an y pre di cat e o ffen se s. Id

. at 7 7 9 -8 6
. Next, the Court exam ined 20 w he the r CC E is the “ sam e of fe nse ” as one or

m or e of it s pr ed ic at es f

or double 21 j eo pardy

pur pose s. I d. a t 78 6. 22 Quite obviou sly the CCE offense is not, in any com m onsens e or litera l 23 m eanin g of

the te rm , the “ sa m e” of

fe nse as one of the pr ed ic at e of fe nse s.8

1 The C CE offense requires the j ury to f ind th at the defendant com m itted 2 a predicate offense, and in additi on that th e predicate offense w as part 3 of

a co nti nui ng s er ie s of

pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s un de rt ak enby

the de fe ndant 4 in concert w ith five or m ore other persons, that the defendant occupied 5 the posit ion of an organizer or m anager, and that the defendant obtained 6 subs tanti al inc om e or re sour ce s fr om the co nti nui ng se ri es of vio la tio ns. 7 Id

. T he Co urt the n a ddr es se d th e de fe ndant’ s arg um en t that th e importa tio n c harg e 8 wa s a lesser- included o ffe n s e o f CCE under Brown —ac as e hol din g th at apr ior 9 co nvi ct ionf

or the le sse r inc lud ed of

fe nse of j oy ri din g pr ohi bit ed

asub se que nt 10 pr os ecu ti on fo r th e gr eat er of fen se of a ut o t he ft. G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 78 7- 88; se e als o 11 Brown , 432 U
. S. a t 16 7- 69. T he Co urt expl ai ne d th at the c ondu ct

that the de fe ndant 12 w as c harg ed

w ith“ doe s no t l en d it se lf to the sim

ple a na log y

of asin gle c our se of 13 conduct . .
. com

prising a less er inclu ded m isdem eanor within a fe lony .” G arr et t , 471 14 U
. S. a t 78 8. D ist ing uis hin g B rown , the G arr et t Court explained that in th at case, 15 “ [e] very

m inute that [the d efendant] drove or p ossessed the stolen autom obile he was 16 sim ultaneous ly

com m itting both th e less er included m isdem eanor and the greater 17 felony .” Id

. at 788- 89. O n th e oth er hand, the de fe ndant i n G arr et t w as inv olv ed in 18 co nduc t tha t spanne d a fi ve an d one -h al f y ea r pe ri od. I d. at 788. T hus, lesser-included 19 offenses arise fr o m t h e sam e act or transaction as the greater -included offense, 20 w he re as aCC E a nd the und er ly ing pr ed ic at e o ff en se s do not . A sin gle c our se of 21 co nduc t can cons tit

ute a standa lon e cr im ina l off en se , w hic h m ay

—a t so m e poi nt i n9

1 the f uture , pos sib ly

y ears la te r— se rv e as apr ed ic at e of fe nse f or aCC E pr ose cu tio n. 2 Se e id

. at 788- 89. Be ca use of thi s dif

fe re nc e be tw ee n le sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse s an d a 3 CCE offense, the G arr et t Co urt rejecte d th e de fe ndant’ s arg um en t tha t the 4 im porta tio n c ha rg e an d C CE w er e the “ sa m e of fe nse ” fo r pur

pose s of double 5 jeop ard y . Id

. a t 78 6- 90. 6 { 10} A lth ough G arr et t a ddr es se d do ubl e j eo pardy iss ue s r ai se d in co nne ct ionw ith 7 CC E r athe r than ra ck et ee ri ng, be ca use both c ri m es a re str

uc tur ed to re qui re pr oof

of 8 un de rlyin g p red ic at e o ffen se s i n o rd er t o p ro ve th e su bs ta nt iv e o ffen se , G arr et t has 9 been interpreted to apply to dou ble j eopardy ch al l enges und er the R acketeer 1 0 I n f l u e n c e da n dC o rr

up tOr g a n i z a t i o n s Ac t( R I C O ) , 1 8 U. S
. C . §§ 19 61 -6 8 (2 01 2)
. Se e, 11 e. g. , U

nit ed Sta tes v . Co le , 293 F .3d 153 , 160 -6 2 ( 4thCi r. 200 2) ; United States v. 12 Cr osby , 20 F
. 3d 48 0, 48 3- 87 ( D
. C
. C i r . 1994 ); U nit ed Sta tes v . D es haw , 974 F
. 2d 13 667, 671-73 (5th Cir. 1992 ); U nit ed Sta tes v . O ’C

onno r , 953 F
. 2d 3 38, 340 -4 1 ( 7th 14 Ci r. 199 2) ; United States v. P ersico , 62 0 F. Supp . 83 6, 84 0- 46 (S.D.N.Y. 19 85 ). See 15 als o W il li am

Ju e, Th e Co nti nui ng F

ina nc ial Cr im es E

nte rpr ise and I

ts Pre dic ate 16 O ffe nses: A Pros ec uto r’

s T wo B ites at

theA ppl e , 27 P ac . L
. J. 128 9, 130 8 ( 1996 ) 17 (“ G arr et t v
. U

nit ed Sta tes is the le ad ing U nit ed S ta te s S upr em e Co urt c as e de al ing 18 w iththe r el at ion shi p be tw ee n am ode rnc om poun d stat

ute suc h as . .
. RI CO
. . . a nd10

1 its pred i cates in a re levant dou ble j eopardy context.” ( footnot es om itted)). 2 Ap p l i ca t i o n of G arr et t h a s r e s u l t e d i n a g e n e r a l c o n s e n s u s t h a t a d e f e n d a n t c a n be 3 pro s ec u t ed an ds en t en ce ds ep ar at el y fo r c o m m i t t i n g t h e u n d erly ing predicate offenses 4 as well as the r ac ke te er ing of fe nse s th em se lve s w ith out of fe ndi ng d oubl e j eo pardy 5 rig ht s. See Ann e Bo wen Po ul in , Double Jeopardy Prosecutions Against Successive 6 Protections in Complex Crim inal Cases: A M odel , 25 Co nn . L
. Re v. 95, 140 -4 1 & 7 n. 205 (1 992) ( not ing that “ in n o c as e ha s ac ourt c on cl uded tha t do ubl e j eo pardy 8 fo re cl ose s s ep arat e p ro se cu ti on ” o f co m po und-c om

ple x of fe nse s, li ke RI CO , and t

he ir 9 pr ed ic at es , a nd c iti ng c as es r el y ing on G arr et t). A s on e ex am ple , in a ca se sim ilar to 10 the one pr es en tly be fo re thi s Co urt, the T hir d Ci rc uit he ld tha t a su bseque nt 11 pr ose cu tio n f

or narc oti cs of

fe nse s, w hic h had pre vio usl y se rv ed as the pr ed ic at e ac ts 12 fo r a RICO pr os ecu ti on , wa s no t b arre d b y do ub le jeop ard y

pro te ct io ns . E

spos ito , 912 1 3 F
. 2 d a t 6 5
. T h e c o u rt a c kn o w l e d g e dt h a tt h e c a s e w a s d i f f e r e n tf r o m G arr et t

be ca use 14 of the or de r in whic h the ch ar ge s we re pr ose cute d— i.e. , r ac ke te er ing be fo re pr ed ic at e 15 of fen se s. Se e E

spos ito , 912 F
. 2d at 62 (“ [T]h is i s no t a c as e w he re a ll the e ve nts 16 ne ce ssary

to the se co nd p ro se cu tio n had no t ta ken pl ac e at the ti m e of

the f ir st 17 pr ose cu tio n. ” (c iti ng G arr et t , 471 U. S. at 798 (O’ Connor, J., concurring))). 18 Nonetheless, the disposi t i v e i n q uiry wa s whether the def

endant had been charged11

1 wit h t he “ sa m e o ffen se ” in bo th pro ceed in gs . Id

. at 6 3
. Th en, a

pply ing th e G arr et t 2 fr am ew or k, t h e c o u rtc o n c l u d e dr e l a t i v e t o t h e f i r s ts t e p , t h a tt h e “ b r o a dp u r p ose 3 behind [RI CO] suppo rts allowing two p rosecutions , irrespective o f the order in which 4 they are brought .” E

spos ito , 912 F
. 2d a t 64 ; se e also U nit ed Sta tes v . Sm ith , 963 F
. 2d 5 89 2, 89 3-94 ( 6thCi r. 199 2) ( hol din g th at pr ose cu tio n f

or narc oti cs c harg e w as not 6 barr ed by doub le j eo pardy , de spi te the use of the sa m e ch ar ge as a pr ed ic at e act in 7 p r e v i o u s C C E c as e) ; U nit ed Sta tes v . L eq uir e , 931 F. 2d 15 39, 1539-40 (11th Cir. 8 1991 ) (p er

c ur ia m ) (c onc lud ing tha t pr ose cu tio n fo r dy na m iti ng ra dio tow er s w as not 9 barr ed by double j eo pardy , e ve n w he n th e sa m e of fe nse se rv ed

a s apr ed ic at e of

fe nse 10 in an e ar lie r RI CO pr ose cu tio n)
. And , r el at ive to the se co nd p ar t of the 11 inquir y —w he the r the de fe ndant w as char ge d w iththe “ sa m e of fe nse ” in b oth 12 pr oc ee din gs—the c ou rt a na log iz ed

to co nspi ra ci es , r ea soni ng tha t i f co lle ct ive 13 cr im ina l a gr ee m en ts tha t c onst itu te c onsp ir ac ie s are not the sa m e as the sub stanti ve 14 offense for purpos es of double jeopardy , then “ the even m ore com plex condu ct 15 ne ed ed to supp ort a RI CO ch ar ge . . . co nst itu te s an of fe nse dif fe re nt tha n and 16 separate f

rom that encom

passed by ” predicate offen s es , e ven if those offenses are 17 us edto pro ve rack et eeri ng . E spos ito , 912 F
. 2d a t 65 -6 7. 18 { 11} G arr et t

a nd i ts p ro ge ny

leave no do ubt tha t this a re a of lawis, a s th e St at e12

1 poin ts out, “ entirely settled against Defe ndant.” See Rak of f & Go ld st ei n, supra , a t § 2 10.04[2] (“ Federa l courts have uniform ly held that a defendant m ay be convicted 3 se parate ly

a nd s en te nc ed cu m

ula tiv el y f or e nga gin g in[ ra ck et ee ri ng] a nd f or 4 co m m itt ing the c ri m es a lleged as the pr ed ic at es f or the [ ra ck et ee ri ng] c harg e. ”) ; 1 5 Mc Co rm ac k, sup ra , a t 6. 16 ( “ Inge ne ra l, the co urts h av e fo und no d oubl e j eo pardy 6 pr obl em s in vol ve d insuc ce ssi ve f ed er al pr ose cu tio ns for pred ic at e of fe nse s and 7 RICO violatio ns.”). 8 B. Ap plication of F eder al Aut hority to Succ essive Prosecu tions for N ew 9 Mexico R ack etee ring Off enses and Un derlying P redic ates 10 { 12} Under G arr et t , w e first c onsid er whether th e Legislature intended for offenses 11 un d e r t h e R a ck et eeri ng Act t o b e se pa rat e o ffen se s fr om th ei r pr ed ic at es . See 471 12 U
. S. a t 77 8. T he Rack ete er ing A ct w as m ode le d a ft er

RI CO , the f

ed er al statut e 13 cr im ina liz ing r ac ke te er ing , a nd a cc or din gly w e loo k to f

ed er al c as es int er

pr et ing 14 RI CO f

or gui danc e in i nte rp re tin g our A ct . State v. H ughes , 198 8- N MC A -1 08, ¶ 19, 15 108 N
. M. 143 , 767 P
. 2d 3 82; Sta te v. J ohns on , 198 6- N MC A -0 84, ¶ 23, 105 N
. M. 63, 16 728 P. 2d 4 73. Co nsi ste nt w ith G arr et t a ndE spos ito , f ederal c ourts int erpreting RIC O 17 ha ve co nc lu de d t ha t t he lan gu ag e o f th e act lea ve s “ li tt le do ub t t h a t C o n g r e ss . . . 18 soug ht t o a llo wthe se parate pr ose cu tio n and p uni shm en t of pr ed ic at e of fe nse s and 19 a subsequent RICO offense. ” U nit ed Sta tes v. G ray

son , 795 F. 2d 27 8, 282 (3rd Cir.13

1 1986 ). RI CO ’ s de fi nit ionof “ pa ttern of r ac ke te er ing , ” w hil e dif fe ri ng s lig htl y , is 2 co ns is te n t w i t h t h e way th atth e Rac ke te eri ng Act d efi ne s t he ter m . Co m pare 18 3 U
. S. C. § 19 61( 5) ( “ ‘ [P ] atte rnof r acketee ri ng a ct ivi ty ’ r equir es a t l ea st tw o a ct s of 4 rackete ering activity , one of which occurred af ter the e ff

ec t ive date of this chapter 5 and the last of which occurred within ten y ears . . . after the com m issio n of a prior ac t 6 of rack et eeri ng act iv it y .”), wi th S ec tio n 30 -4 2- 3( D ) (“ ‘ [P ] attern of r ac ke te er ing 7 ac tiv ity ’ m eans e nga gin g ina t l ea st tw o inc ide nts of r ac ke te er ing
. . . pr ovi de d a t l ea st 8 one of the incidents o ccurre d after February 28, 1980 and th e last incident occurred 9 w ith in f

ive y ears a ft er

the c om m is si on of

apr ior inc ide nt o f ra ck et ee ri ng. ”)
. T he 10 langua ge of

the de fi nit ion s su gge sts that a de fendan t c oul d be c onvi ct ed a nd 11 se nte nc ed

f or ar ac ke te er ing a ct

— i.e. , apr ed ic at e of

fe ns e—a nd y ears la te r, be 12 ch arg edwit h a rack et eeri ng off en se ba se d on th atpri orco nv ic ti on . G ray son , 795 F
. 2d 13 at 282 ; accord Persico , 620 F. Supp. at 841. “ [N ] othin g in t h e legi slative hist ory 14 su gg es ts th at Co ng res s in te nd ed RICO to be a su bs ti tu te forth e p red ic at e o ffen se .” 15 E spos ito , 912 F
. 2d a t 63
. I nst ea d, it is cl ear tha t “ Co ngre ss s ough t t o su ppl em en t, 16 rather than supplant, existin g crim es and penalties.” G ray son , 795 F
. 2d a t 28 2; 17 Cr osby , 20 F
. 3d a t 48 4; c f. G arr et t , 4 7 1 U
. S
. a t7 8 4 ( “N o w h e r e i n t h e l e g i s l a t i ve 18 his tor y is it state d th at

a big -t im e dr

ug ope rator co uld be pr ose cu te d and c onvi ct ed f or14

1 the se parate pr ed ic at e of fe nse s a s w el l a s th e CC E of fe nse . T he abse nce of su cha 2 state m en t, how ev er , is not sur pr isi ng; giv en the m oti va tio n behi nd the le gis la tio n and 3 the tem per of the debate, such a st atem ent would m erely have stated the obvio us.”). 4 T his int en t ho lds tr

ue r eg ar dle ss o f the or de r in whic h th e of fe nse s are pr ose cu te d. 5 { 13} A ddi tio na lly , it

w oul d be c ontrary

to co m m on s en se a nd w oul d un de rm ine the 6 pur pose of r ac ke te er ing le gis la tio n to fo rc e the S ta te to ch oose be tw ee n pr ose cu tin g 7 th e p red ic at e o ffen se s o r pu rs ui ng a rack et eeri ng cas e. Cf . id

. at 785 ( “ [I ] t w oul d be 8 illog ical for Congress to intend that a choice be m ade betwe en the predicate off enses 9 an d th e CC E of

fe nse in pu rs ui ng m aj or

dr ug d ea le rs . ”)
. G ive n th e w ay that the 10 Ra ck et ee ri ng A ct

is str uc tur ed , ade fe ndant co ul d be pr ose cu te d f or apr ed ic at e 11 of fe nse lon g bef

or e a r ac ke te er ing c as e m at er ia liz ed
. H ow ev er , if a t the ti m e tha t the 1 2 pr e d i c a t e o f

f e n s e w a s c o m

m i t t e dt h e d e f

e n d a n tw a s s u s p e c t e dt o b e i n v o l v e din 1 3 ra ck e t e e r i n g , t h e S t a t e w o u l db e f o r c e dt o c h o o s e b e t w e e n p u r s u i n g a n i m m e d ia te 14 convictio n on th e predicate offense or wa iting in an attem pt to catch the defendant at 15 le as t o ne mo r e t im e in ord er t o p ur su e a rac ke te eri ng cas e. Se e id. ; United States v. 16 A rnol dt , 947 F
. 2d 11 20 , 1127 ( 4thCi r. 199 1) ( “ Whe n gr ap pli ng w ithac om ple x, 17 m ult ilay e r e d

- c o n d

uc t st at ute suc h a s R IC O , the gov er nm en t m ust be giv enr ea sona

ble 18 dis cr et ionin se tti ng and p ur sui ng i ts s tr at eg y . . . . Wit hout a m ple dis cr et ion , the15

1 governm ent would be forced to e ither proceed against a defe ndant for violatio ns that 2 m igh t l at er

se rv e as pr ed ic at e ac ts and f or ec los e a RI CO pr ose cu tio n in the f uture or 3 al lowpr ed ic at e ac ts t o go unpunis he d ina nti ci pa tio n th at a t so m e fu tur e tim e the 4 RI CO e le m en ts w oul d c oa le sc e. ”). “ Suchasit ua tio n [ w oul d be ] absur d and c le ar ly 5 not what [w as] intended.” G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 78 6; see also Persico , 620 F. Supp. at 6 842 (c onc lud ing that C ongr es s in te nde d to pe rm it both suc ce ssi ve pr ose cu tio ns and 7 cum ulative pun ishm ents for RIC O and predicate offenses, in part, b e c a us e a “ contrary 8 int er pr et at ion
. . . w oul d pu t f ed er al pr ose cuto rs inthe unt en ab le pos iti on . . . of 9 having to choose between prosecuting either the predic ate offe nses or the RICO 10 charge”)
. 11 { 14} In light of the foregoing , and bec au s e we perce ive no m aterial diff erence 12 be tw ee n th e pur

pose of RI CO a nd tha t unde rl y ing the Ra ck et ee ri ng A ct , w e co nc lud e 13 tha t the L eg isl at

ur e int en ded fo r pr ed ic at e of fe nse s to be se parate f

ro m sub stanti ve 14 rack et eeri ng off

en se s. A cc ord Jo hnso n , 1 9 8 6 -N M CA -0 8 4 , ¶3 4 (“New Me x i co ’s 15 Ra ck et ee ri ng A ct

. . . e vin ce s an im

pli ci t l eg isl at ive int en t tha t the crim e of 16 rackete ering constitu tes a separate and distin ct offense a part from the enum erate d 17 predicate cr im es.” ). 18 { 15} Turning to t h e second step un der G arr et t , w e next exam ine whether16

1 pr ose cu tio n f

or both su bst an tiv e ra ck et ee ri ng o ff en se s and p re dic at e of

fen se s, in 2 se pa rat e pr oc eed in gs , off en ds th e ri gh t ag ai ns t d ou bl e jeop ard y . See 471 U
. S. at 786
. 3 “T h e c r i t i c a l i n qu i ry i s w h e t h e r a[ r a c k e t e e r i n g ] o f

f e n s e i s c o n s i d e r e dt h e s a me 4 off en se a s on e or

m or e of it s pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s w ith in the m eanin g of the double 5 j eopardy

clause. ” G ray

son , 795 F
. 2d a t 28 3; ac co rd G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 78 6 ( “ T he 6 cr iti ca l i nqui ry

is w he the r a CC E of

fe nse is co nsi de re d th e ‘ sa m e of fe nse ’ a s on e or 7 m ore of its predicate offenses w ithin the m eaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. ”). 8 { 16} O the r co urts tha t have a na ly ze d th is i ssu e ha ve no te d, a s th e Co urt di d in 9 G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 78 6, that a r ac ke te er ing of

fe nse is not

“ in a li te ral sense ” the 10 s am e as on e o f it s p red ic at es . Se e, e . g. , G ray son , 7 9 5 F
. 2 da t2 8 3
. R a c k e te er ing 11 re qui re s pr oof

of pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s a s part

of apa tte rnof ra ck et ee ri ng i n a ddi tio n to 12 th e o th er el em en ts of r ack et eeri ng . See § 30 -4 2- 3( D ); § 30-4 2- 4( A )- (C ). T o pr ope rl y 13 ex am ine the iss ue , how ev er , “ we m us t e xam ine not

onl y the statut e w hic h [ the 14 L eg isl at

ur e] ha s e na ct ed , but

a lso the c harg es w hich fo rm the ba sis of the [ St at e’ s] 15 prosecution here. ” G arr et t , 471 U. S. at 786. In the racketeer ing case, the j ury wa s 16 ins tr uc te d th at to fi nd De fe ndant guil ty of ra ck et ee ri ng, the re m ust be pr oof be y ond 17 a re as ona

ble doubt tha t ( 1) a n e nte rp ri se e xis te d, (2 ) D ef en dant w as a sso ci at ed

w ith 18 the enterprise, (3) Defe ndant participated either directly or indirectly

in the condu ct17

1 of the a ff ai rs of the e nte rp ri se thr oughapa tte rnof r ac ke te er ing act iv it ies, a nd ( 4) 2 D ef en dant e nga ge d ina t l ea st tw o inci de nts of r ac ke te er ing w iththe int en t t o c om m it 3 a prohibited activit y

within five y ears of a prior incident of rac keteering. T he j ury wa s 4 al so give n separate ins tr uc tio ns on ar son, fi rs t- de gr ee m ur de r, an d brib er

y of apub lic 5 of fi ce r as pos sib le inc ide nts of r ac ke te er ing
. T he jury

c onvi ct ed

D ef en dant o f 6 rackete ering, which m eans that it necessarily found, bey ond a reasonable doub t, that 7 D ef en dant c om

m itt ed a t le as t tw o pr ed ic at e of fe nse s—a lth oughw e do n ot k now 8 which tw o. T he charges that D efendant presently faces include the sam e offe nses 9 used as predicates in the rackete ering case—fir st-degree m urder, arson, and brib ery 10 of a pu bl ic off

ic er— as well as c on sp ira cy to c omm it fir st -d eg ree m ur de r an d t wo 11 counts o f tam

pering with evidence. 12 { 17} De fendant relies on the Blockburger test in arguing that som e of the off enses 1 3 in th i s c a s e c o n s t i tu t e t h e s a m e o f f e n s e s a s t h o s e h e w a s p r o s e c u t e d f o r i n the 14 rackete ering case. Specific ally , D efendant asserts that “ [t] here is no basis to [argue] 15 that proof bey ond a reasonable doub t of the elem ents of m urder, arson, and bribery 16 in the c ont ex t of

ar ac ke te er ing c as e re qui re s pr oof of af ac t tha t w oul d no t be 17 re qui re d inatr ia l fo r m ur de r, ar son, or

br ibe ry . ” Inac as e not

inv olv ing r ac ke te er ing 18 charges, the failure to s at i s fy the Blockburger te st w oul d li ke ly

be he lpf ul t o18

1 Defen da nt . Se e g e ne ra l l yR odriguez , 200 5- N MS C- 019, ¶ 7 ( ex pla ini ng tha t the 2 m eanin g of

“ sa m e of fe nse , ” re la tiv e to the Fi fth Am en dm en t pr ote ct iona ga ins t be ing 3 he ld tw ic e in j eo pardy

f or the sa m e of

fe nse in the c ont ex t of

suc ce ssi ve pr ose cu tio ns, 4 is determ ined by

the Blockburger test). How ever, the Blockburger test wa s developed 5 “ in the co nte xt of m

ult ipl e puni shm en ts im

pose d in a sing le pr ose cu tio n” a nd “ is n ot 6 controllin g when th e legi slative intent is clear. ” G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 77 8- 79. Be ca use 7 w e ha ve co nc lud ed tha t our L eg isl at ur e int en de d pr ed ic at e of

fe nse s and r ac ke te er ing 8 offenses to be separate, we are not sway ed by De fendant’ s argum ent that this Cou rt 9 shou ld applythe Blockburger te st t o c oncl ud e tha t the y a re the sa m e of

fe nse f or 10 pu rp os es of d ou bl e jeop ard y . Se e E spos ito , 912 F. 2d at 64 (conclud ing th at 11 B loc kb urge r is i na

ppl ic ab le be ca

use the int en t of

Co ngr es s to m ak e ra ck et ee ri ng a 12 separate off

ense from its predicate ac ts is clear). 13 { 18} W e al so p oin t ou t tha t the pr ose cu tio ns f or r ac ke te er ing in the e ar lie r ca se a nd 14 the c harg es in thi s c as e ar e ai m ed a t de te rr ing dif

fe re nt k ind s of

c ondu ct —the ove ra ll 1 5 c u mu l a t i v e a c t i v i t y o f r a c k e t e e r i n g , o n t h e o n e h a n d , a n d mur d e r , a r s o n , a n db r i b e ry, 16 on th e o th er. G ray

son , 795 F
. 2d a t 28 3; se e als o E spos ito , 912 F. 2d a t 65 ( an al ogi zi ng 17 to con spi ra cy ca se s and noti ng tha t a cons pir ac y of fe nse “ pose s di sti nc t dange rs qui te 18 ap ar t f ro m tho se of the [ co m ple te d] su bstan tiv e of

fe nse ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks19

1 an d c itatio n om itt ed ))
. I n othe r w or ds, al tho ugh the re m ay be sig nif ic an t ov er la

p in 2 the e vid en ce pr es en te d a ga ins t D ef en dant i n bo th tri al s, D ef en dant is no t bei ng 3 pr ose cu te d inthe m

ur de r ca se f

or the sa m e co nduc t he w as pr ose cu te d f or in the 4 rack et eeri ng cas e. Se e E spos ito , 912 F
. 2d a t 67
. T his fa ct le nds furthe r supp ort t o our 5 co n cl u s i o n t h at d o u b l e j e o p ar d y p ro t ec t i o n s d o n o tp re s en ta b art o De fe n d an t ’s 6 prosecution for m

urder, arson, and bribery

in this case. 7 { 19} Although De fendant contends that other j urisdictio ns have conclud ed 8 dif fe ren tly than w e do h er e tod ay , the c as es that he c ite s to do n ot s uppo rt his 9 co nte nti on. D ef

en dant r el ie s on Exparte Chad dock , 3 6 9 S
. W. 3 d8 8 0 ( T e x . C r i m. 10 App. 2012 ) , whi c h i m

pl i c at e s l e sse r-included-offense double je opardy j urisprudence. 11 It is we ll establish ed am ong s t fe deral courts, however, that the lesser-included 1 2 fr a m e w o rkf

o r a n a l y z i n g d o ub l e j e o p a r d y i s s u e s d o e s n o tap p l y

t o r a c k e t e e r i ng 13 of fen se s. Se e, e . g. , G arr et t , 471 U
. S. a t 78 7- 90; E spos ito , 9 12 F.2 d a t 65 -6 7. 14 D ef en dant al so ci te s to P eo

ple v . M art in , 721 N
. W
. 2d 8 15 ( Mi ch
. Ct
. App. 200 6) , but 15 we fai l t o s ee ho w i t su pp or ts Defen da nt ’s arg um en t. If a nyth in g, M art in supp orts the 16 co nc lus ionw e re ac h to day . I n M art in , the c ourt sp ec if

ic al ly r ej ec te d stri ct

appl ic at ion 17 of the Blockburger

te st, loo kin g in ste ad

to le gis la tiv e int en t to d et er m ine that ke ep ing 18 a hous e of

pr ost itu tio n w as a“ se parat e off en se ” fr om

r ac ke te er ing f

or pur pose s of20

1 do ub le jeop ard y . M

art in , 721 N. W .2 at

8 25-30. In short, neither Chaddo ck nor M art in 2 al te r our co nc lus ion tha t pr ed ic at e of fe nse s ar e se parate fr om th e ra ck et ee ri ng 3 of fe nse s th ey

sup port. 4 C . D ou bl e Je op ar dy C lai m u nd er t he N ew M ex ic o C on st it ut ion 5 { 20} Having concluded that th ere exists no doub le j eopardy bar under the fe deral 6 co nst itu tio n, w e tur

n no wto D ef

en dant’ s arg um en t ba se d onN ewMe xic o’ s do ubl e 7 j eo pardy

pr ovi sion. I n su

ppor t of his a rg um en t, D ef

en dant p oin ts t o th e pla in 8 langua ge of N ew Me xic o’ s co nst itu tio na l pr osc ri pti on ag ai nst doub le j eo pardy . T he 9 St at e, howev er, co nte nds tha t D ef en dant f ai le d to a de qua te ly

pr es er ve his state 10 co nst itu tio na l arg um en t. Be fo re w e pr oc ee d, w e fi rs t de te rm ine w he the r D ef en dant 11 adequately

preserved this issue. 12 { 21} As t he Sta te po in ts ou t, State v. L eyva , 201 1- N MS C- 009, 149 N
. M. 435 , 250 13 P. 3d 86 1, cl ar if

ie d th e re qui re m en ts f

or pr es er vin g astate c onst itu tio na l arg um en t 14 under State v. G omez , 199 7- N MS C- 006, 122 N
. M. 777 , 932 P
. 2d 1
. 15 Where a

state constitut ional provi sion h as prev i o u s l y been interpreted 16 m or e ex pansi ve ly than it s f ed er al c o un t e r

p ar t, tr ia l c ouns el m

ust de ve lop 17 t h e necessary

fac tual base and raise the applicable constituti onal 18 provisi on in trial court. Where the provision h as never befor e been 19 ad dr es se d un de r our int er sti tia l ana ly sis , tr ia l c ouns el a ddi tio na lly m ust 20 argue that the state consti t u t ional provi sion s houl d provid e grea ter 21 protection, and sugg est reasons as to why , f or exam pl e, “ a flaw ed 22 federa l analy sis, structural diffe rences betw een state and fe deral21

1 go ve rn m en t, o r di st in ct iv e st at e ch arac te ris ti cs .” 2 Leyv a , 201 1- N MS C- 009, ¶ 49 ( em ph as is om it te d) (qu ot in g Gom ez , 199 7- N MS C- 006, 3 ¶ 19)
. Be ca

use thi s C ourt ha s pr ev iou sly int er pr et ed N ewMe xic o’ s do ubl e j eo pardy 4 p r o v i s i o n t o a ffo rdgre at er p ro te ct io n t ha n t he Fif th Am en dm en t, see Ly nch , 200 3- 5 N MS C- 020, ¶

13, D ef en dant h ad

onl y to inv oke N ewMe xic o’ s do ubl e j eo pardy 6 pr ovi sio n inthe dis tr ic t c ourt and d ev el op an a de qua te r ec or d to re vie w the iss ue on 7 ap pe al
. See Ley va , 2011-NMS C-009, ¶ 49. Our review of the record below indicates 8 tha t D ef

en dant ci te d to both th e Fi fth A m en dm en t t o th e U nit ed S ta te s C onst itu tio n 9 an d A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 15 of the N ew Me xic o Co nst itu tio n inhis m oti on t o di sm iss 10 on do uble j eopardy ground s, and he also developed the necessary fac tual base before 11 the district court. A ccordingly , D efendant’ s argum en t under the NewMexico 12 Co nst itu tio n w as ind ee d pr es er ve d. 13 { 22} Turning to the m erits of De fendant’ s claim , the first step o f t h e in terstitial 14 ap pr oa chis to d et er

m ine 15 whether t h e right being asserted is protected und er the f ederal 16 constitu tion. If it is, then the state constitu tional cla im is not re ached. If 17 it is n ot, the n th e state c onst itu tio n is e xa m ine d. A state c ourt a dopt ing 18 this ap pr oachm ay div er ge f ro m f ed er al pr ec ed en t f

or thr ee r ea sons : a 19 flaw ed feder al analy sis, s tructural differ ences betw een state and fe deral 20 gove rn m en t, or dis tin ct ive state c hara ct er ist ic s. 21 Gom ez , 199 7- N MS C- 006, ¶ 19 (c itatio ns o m itt ed ). H av ing c onc lud ed that D ef en dant22

1 is not p rotected by

the Fifth A m endm ent from the subs equent prosecution in this case, 2 we pr oc eedto co ns id er Defen da nt ’s c la im un de r th e New Mex ic o C on st it ut io n. See 3 id. 4 { 23} Ci tin g to c as es in w hic h this Court ha s dive rg ed fr om the f ed er al int er

pr et at ion 5 of double j eo pardy

guarante es , D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

“ the int en t of the dr af

te rs of the 6 Ne w Me xico [C] onsti tutio n was to provide greater protections th an” ar e af forded 7 unde r the f

ed er al a na ly sis
. W e ag re e w ithD ef en dant t ha t, in ce rt ai n c ont ex ts, 8 de fe ndants a re a ff

or de d m or e pr ote ct ionund er N ewMe xic o’ s do ubl e j eo pardy 9 p r o v i s ion
. See Lynch , 200 3- N MS C- 020, ¶ ¶ 11, 15- 20 ( hol din g th at pr ose cu tio n f

or 10 fi rs t- de gr ee m

urde r fo llo w ing r ev er sa l of se co nd- de gr ee m

ur de r did not vio la te 11 fe de ra l do ubl e j eo pardy c lause but

did vio la te N ewMe xic o’ s do ubl e jeop ar dy 12 pr ovi sio n) ; State v. Nunez , 200 0- N MS C- 013, ¶ ¶ 16- 18, 129 N.M. 6 3, 2 P. 3d 2 64 13 (d ep ar tin g f ro m fede ra l pr ec ed en t ba se d ondis tin ct ive state c hara ct er ist ic s and 14 int er pr et ing N ew

Me xic o’ s do ubl e j eo pardy c lause to pr ohi bit se parate cr im ina l and 15 civil forfeiture a ctions for the sam e offe nse); Sta te v. B re it , 1996 -N MS C- 067, ¶¶ 32- 16 36, 122 N. M. 655, 930 P. 2d 792 (adopting a standard differ ent from that em ploy ed 17 by the feder al courts to determ i n e wh en retria l is barred in the context of im proper 18 of fi ci al c ondu ct

ba se d onthe Co urt’ s c onc lus ionthat the N ewMe xic o do ubl e23

1 j eo pardy

pr ovi sio n a ff

or ds m or e pr ote ct ion ). H ow ev er , D ef en dant o ff

er s no ba sis 2 unde r the int er sti tia l a

ppr oa chthat w oul d j ust if

y our de part ur e fr om f ed er al pr ec ed en t 3 in the context o f ra cketeer ing cases, particularly when w e have followe d fed eral 4 in te rp ret at io ns of R ICO t hu s fa r. Se e, e . g. , Sta te v . R iv era , 200 9- N MC A -1 32, ¶ ¶ 11- 5 12, 147 N.M. 406 , 223 P
. 3d 9 51; Sta te v . A rm ijo , 199 7- N MC A -0 80, ¶ ¶ 13- 15, 123 6 N
. M. 690 , 944 P
. 2d 9 19; Hughes , 1988 -N MC A -1 08, ¶¶ 18- 35; Sta te v . W

yn ne , 198 8- 7 N MC A -1 06, ¶

¶ 7- 8, 108 N
. M. 134 , 767 P
. 2d 3 73; Jo hnso n , 198 6- N MC A -0 84, ¶ ¶ 23- 8 34. 9 { 24} W ithr es pe ct to D ef en dant’ s ar gum en t ba se d on the pla in langua ge of A rt ic le 10 II , S ec tio n 15 , w e ar e sim ilarl y unpe rs ua de d. Inr el ev an t part , A rt ic le I I, S ec tio n 15 11 pr ovi de s: 12 No person .
. . shall . .
. be t wi ce put in je opardy for the sam e offe nse; 13 an d w he n th e ind ic tm en t, inf orm at ionor

a ff idavit upo n w hic h any 14 pe rs on i s c onvi ct ed c harg es dif

fe re nt o ff en se s or dif fe re nt d eg re es of

the 15 sa m e of

fe nse a nd a ne w tr ia l i s gr an te d th e ac cu se d, he m ay not a ga in b e 16 tr ie d f

or an of fe nse or de gr ee of

the of fe nse gr eate r than th e one of 17 w hic h he w as c onvi ct ed
. 18 D ef en dant co nte nds tha t the pla in langua ge of the fo re goi ng co nst itu tio na l pr ovi sio n 19 confers upon him

a “ right not to be retried in a subs equent trial for an offense gre ater 20 than r ac ke te er ing or

c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it racke te er ing
. ” D ef

en dant’ s arg um en t 21 ign or es c ont ex t— it fa ils to ac knowle dge that the langua ge of the pr ovi sio n24

1 specifically

contem plates a s ituation in which a def endant is conv icted of an offe nse, 2 and thereafte r, “ a newtrial is granted.” Id

. T ha t is no t w ha t oc curr ed he re . T his is not 3 a si tu at io n wh ere Def

en da nt ’s con vi ct io ns in a pr ev io us cas e were rev ers ed , a nd we 4 ar e nowta ske d w ithde te rm ini ng wh at opt ion s th e St at e ha s inc harg ing D ef en dant 5 on r etri al
. Rathe r, the S ta te now se ek s to p ro se cu te D ef en dant f or the standa lon e 6 cr im ina l of

fe nse s w hic h f

orm ed the ba sis of

the rack ete er ing c onvi ct ion
. T his 7 subs eque nt p ro se cu tio n is se parate a nd a part f ro m the c rime o f racke te er ing a nd i s 8 not , a s D ef

en dant c ont en ds, “ a ne wtr ia l” f or th e sa m e of

fe nse . T hus, c ontrary

to 9 De fendant’ s assertion, the plain language of Article II, Section 15 does not su pport 10 a d iff eren t re su lt
. 11 D. Joinder 12 { 25} Af

ter re viewing Def

endant’ s application for interlocuto ry ap p eal, this Court 1 3 i s s u ed an o rd er , s u a s p o n t e, re qu es t i n g t h at t h e S t at e f i l e a re s p o n s e t o De fe n d an t ’s 14 ap pl ic at io n a dd res si ng th e p ot en ti al im pl ic at io ns of jo i n d er u nd er Ru le 5-2 03 (A) 15 NMRA i n t hi s ca se . Se e Sta te v . A rre ndon do , 201 2- N MS C- 013, ¶ 20, 278 P. 3d 5 17 16 (“ A lth ougha s age ne ra l r ule propo sit ion s of

lawnot r ai se d inthe tr ia l c ourt sh oul d 17 not be r ai se d su a spon te by the appe llate c ourt, the re a re e xc ep tio ns. ”)
. T he S ta te 1 8 co m p l i ed wi t h t h e C o u rt ’s re qu es t , a d d re s s i n g jo i n d er i n i t s re s p o n s e t o De fe n d an t ’s25

1 ap pli catio n and in its an sw er br ie f. D ef en dant did not ad dr es s j oin de r in h is b ri ef in 2 ch ie f an d he did not fi le a re ply br ie f. Be ca use D ef en dant de cl ine d to pur sue the iss ue 3 as a po te nt ia l b as is forrel ie f, we do no t co ns id er i t h ere. Se e Sta te v . J ohns on , 201 0- 4 N MS C- 016, ¶

62, 148 N
. M. 50, 229 P
. 3d 5 23 ( co nc lu din g th at the de fe ndant 5 ab an done d iss ue s “ by

f ai lin g to dis cu ss the m

in his br ie f” ); Sta te v . F

er guso n , 199 0- 6 N MC A -1 17, ¶

24, 111 N
. M. 191 , 803 P
. 2d 6 76 ( “ Co ur ts sh ou ld not take it upo n 7 them selves to raise, argue, and decide legal issues o verlooked bythe law y ers. ”). 8 IV. CON CLU SION 9 { 26} The pro hi bi t i ona ga i ns td ou bl e j e op a r dy , a s gu ar a nt e e d by b oth t he U ni t ed 10 St at es a nd N ewMe xic o c onst itu tio ns, doe s not bar the S ta te f ro m pr ose cu tin g 11 De fen dant for the predicate off enses on which his racketeer ing conv ictions were 12 based. The district c ourt’ s order deny ing D efendant’ s m otion to dism iss is th eref ore 13 af fi rm ed , a nd w e re m an d th is c as e fo r furthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsist en t w iththi s 14 opi nio n. 15 { 27} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

16

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 17 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice26

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 7 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 GAR Y L . C LINGM AN , Just ice