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

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: D ec em

be r 3, 201 4 4 N O. 32, 881 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 DA NN Y S URRA TT, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF LEACO UN TY 11 St ev en L. Be ll, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 13 Yvonne M. C hicoine, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 T em ple m ana nd C ru tc hf

ie ld 17 C. Barr

y Cr utc hf ie ld 18 Lov in gt on , NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} T his ap pe al ra ise s the iss ue w he the r a per son ap poi nte d a s sp ec ia l pr ose cu tor 4 in a crim inal case has authority t o ap poin t another attorney to act as special 5 pr ose cu tor

ins te ad
. I n D ef

en da nt’ s f

ir st tri al , pr ose cu te d by

aspe ci al pro se cu tor 6 ap poi nte d by

the dis tr ic t a tto rn ey

of the j udi ci al dis tr ic t in w hic h the ca se or igi na te d, 7 t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rt o r d e r e d a n e w t r i a l
. De f e n d a n t ’s s e c o n dtr i a l wa s p r o s e c u t e db y a 8 se co nd s pe ci al pr ose cu tor , thi s on e app oin te d by the fi rs t spec ia l pros ec uto r. W e hol d 9 tha t the dis tr ic t a tto rn ey of the j udi ci al dis tr ic t in whi ch the ca se or igi na te d wa s th e 10 onlyperson with aut hority to appoin t a sp ecial prosecuto r and that the district court 11 la ck ed

j ur isd ic tio n ov er

the c as e be ing r etri ed
. 12 BACKGRO UND 13 { 2} D e f

e n d a n t D a n n y S u rr a t t w a s ap o l i c e o f f i c e r a n dd e p u t y s h e r i f

f i n Le aC o u n t y, 14 N ewMe xic o f

or appr oxi m at el y

thi rty -f ive y ears . Whe n he w as c ha rg ed w ithf our 1 5 co u n t s a r i s i n g o u t o f a l l e g a t i o n s o f s e x u a l ab u s e o f h i s w i f e ’ s t w o m ino r 16 gr an ddaught er s in L ea Co unty , Ja ne tta H ic ks, the dis tr ic t at tor ne y for th e Fi fth 17 Judi ci al D istri ct , the jud ic ial d istri ct in w hic h L ea

Co unty is sit ua te d a nd the 18 pr ose cu tio n or igi na te d, de te rm ine d th at ac onf lic t of int e r e s t p r e c l u d e d

h e r o ff ic e fr om 19 pr ose cu tin g D ef

en da nt. A cc or din gly , ac tin g pur suant to N MS A 1978 , Se ct ion36- 1-2

1 23. 1 ( 1984 ), Ms
. H ic ks a ppoi nte d D ianaMartw ic k, dis tr ic t at tor ne y fo r the T w el fth 2 Ju di ci al Dis tri ct , to pro se cu te Defe n d an t i n h er s te ad
. Se e id. (providing that when 3 a district attorney “ cannot prosecute a case f or ethical re asons or oth er good cause” 4 the district attorney m ay “ appoin t a p racticing m em ber o f th e b ar of this state to act 5 as special assistant dist rict attorney ”). 6 { 3} Ms
. M a rtw i c k a s s i g n e d a s s i s t a n t d i s t r i c t a t t o rn e y s f r o m h e r o f

f i c e i n the 7 Tw elfth Judicial District to prosecut e t he State’ s case against D efendant, and they 8 proceeded to file a crim inal inform ation against Defendant in the Fifth Judicial 9 D istri ct Co urt and the n to tr y the St at e’ s ca se ag ai nst D ef en da nt b ef

or e a j ur y . O f the 10 fo ur c ha rg es tha t c om

pr ise d th e St at e’s case a ga ins t D ef en da nt, the j ur

y f ound 11 De fendant guilt y of a singl e cou nt of crim inal sexual penetration of a child betwee n 12 the a ge s of

thi rt ee n a nd e igh te en . T he dis tr ic t c ourt di sm iss ed tw o of the c ha rg es , a nd 13 because the j ury

co u l d n o t rea ch a verdict as to the fourth char ge, the district court 14 declare d a m istrial as to that charge. Before De fendant wa s sentenced, new counsel 15 entered the ca se on his b ehalf. D efendant, throug h his new couns el, m oved for a new 16 trial on the basis of an error in the j ury instruction s related to t h e char ge of w hich 17 D ef en da nt w as c onvi ct ed , a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt gr an te d th e m oti on. 18 { 4} Whe n th e dis tr ic t c ourt or de re d ane w tr ia l, Ms
. Martw ic k w as il l and 19 unde rg oin g m ed ic al tr ea tm en t and wa s ther ef or e una ble to per sona lly

pr ose cu te the3

1 St at e’ s c as e ag ai nst

D ef en da nt. A lso , a n un spe ci fi ed c onf lic t ha d a ri se n be tw ee n th e 2 al le ge d vi ct im s an d the as sis tant dis tr ic t a tto rn ey w ho h ad pr ose cu te d D ef

en da nt i n 3 the f ir st tri al. Ow ing to the c onf lic t and b ec au se , in Ms
. Martw ic k’ s vi ew , the 4 as sis tant d istri ct

a tto rn ey “ se em ed ove rw he lm ed by the ca se an d ha vin g to r etry the 5 wh o l e t h i n g al l o v er ag ai n [, ]” an d l ac k ed “ t h e ex p er i en ce t o d ea l wi t h t h e r e- t ri al [, ]” 6 Ms. Martwic k “ felt that it would be in the best int erest of j ustice to re-assign the case” 7 to anoth er j urisdictio n. Ms. Martw ick then appoi nted Matthew Chandler, district 8 at tor ne y f or the N inth Ju dic ia l D istri ct , a s sp ec ia l pr ose cu tor in th e Sta te ’ s c as e 9 ag ai nst D ef en da nt. 10 { 5} Fo l l o wi n g M r. Ch an d l er ’s ap p o i n t m en t as s p ec i al p ro s ec u t o r, Mr . C h an d l er ’s 11 chief deputy

district attorney

entered her

appearance on behalf of the State and began 12 mo v i n g t h e cas e to wardtri al . Defen da nt su cces sf ul ly m ov edto sev er t he two 13 re m ai nin g c ha rg es a ga ins t hi m , a nd t he St at e re -tri ed D ef en da nt o n th e ch ar ge of 14 cr im ina l se xua l pe ne tr at ionof ac hil d un de r the a ge of th irt een . Aj ur y f ound 15 D ef en da nt g uil ty

of tha t c ha rg e; how ev er , be fo re D ef en da nt w as se nte nced , his 16 counsel learned from an anonym ous telepho n e call th at “ ‘ the j ury had and used 17 im proper inform ation’ ” in rea ching its verdict. De fendant m oved for a newtrial 18 co nti nge nt u

pon co nf irm ing the tr

uthof the an ony

m ous ca lle r’ s in fo rm at ion
. T he 19 district court issued an order auth orizing De fendant’ s counsel to interview the jurors4

1 co n ce rn i n g De fe n d an t ’s t ri al
. Th e co u rt al s o d et er m i n ed t h at , p en d i n g De fe n d an t ’s 2 investig ation int o the jury issue, it w ould delay

filing a j u d g m en t and sentence 3 pur suant t o th e j ur

y ’ s ve rd ic t. 4 { 6} Al t h o u g h t h e i n v e s t i g at i o n i n t o t h e ju ry i s s u e d i dn o t , i n d ef en s e c o u n s el ’s 5 es tim at ion , “ w ar

rant fur the r ac tio ns[ , ] ” D ef

en da nt nev er

the le ss m ove d to dis m iss the 6 com plaint and set asid e the sentence because, in the process of investig ating the jury 7 iss ue , de fe nse c ouns el “ be cam e aw ar e fo r the f ir st t im e of

de fe ct s inthe appoi ntm en t 8 of” Mr. Chandler as special prosecutor. D efendant argued that Mr. Chandler lacked 9 authorityto prosecute Def endant because, am ong other thing s, Ms. Martwick, in her 10 ro le a s sp ec ia l pr ose cu tor , la ck ed auth or ity to ap poi nt anothe r spe ci al pr ose cu tor to 11 prosecute the State’ s case. D efendant concluded by ar g u i ng that, because Mr
. 12 Chandler lacked authority to prosecute D efendant, “ no jurisdiction exist s for cr im inal 13 prosecution of the m atter[. ] ” In a follow-up m otion containing point s and authorities 14 in s uppo rt

of his l ack -o f- au tho ri ty

a rg um en t, D ef

en da nt a lso a rg ue d th at Ms
. 15 Martw ic k di d no t have a val id or ethic al r ea son to a ppoi nt a ne w spe ci al pr ose cu tor 16 to p ro se cu te D ef

en da nt. 17 { 7} The S t at e’ s response to Defendant’ s m otion to dism iss the com plaint and set 18 aside the sentence included af fidavits of Ms. H icks, Ms. Martw ick, and Mr. C handler. 19 Inr el ev an t part , Ms
. H ic ks s ta te d in he r af fi da vit tha t Ms. Martw ic k “ w oul d no t have17 I f Ms
. H ic ks and h er of fi ce ha d ac onf

lic t tha t r equir ed

he r to a ppoint a 1 18 special prosecutor, here Ms. Martw ick, w e do not un derstand why Ms. H icks excused 19 herself and her office for reasons of conflict from appoint ing a replacem ent special 20 prosecutor. 5 1 co m e ba ck to m

y of fi ce fo r an oth er

appoi ntm en t a s I w as a lr ea dy c onf lic te d ou t of

the 2 proceeding. It w ould have been [Ms.] Martw ick’ s responsib ility to m ake any

further 3 [special prosecu t o r] a

ppoi ntm ents she deem ed appropriate.” Ms. Martw ick stated 1 4 in her aff

idavit that before re-a ssign ing the case, she contacted Ms. H icks, and they 5 “ both a gr ee d th at

[ Ms
. H ic ks] w as co nf

lic te d out an d tha t [M s. Martw ic k] sho uld be 6 the one to” appoin t a new special prosecutor. Ms. Martw ick also a ddressed the bases 7 of h er de c i si ont o app oi nt a no t he r s pe c i a l p r os e c ut or . F i na l l y , M r . C hand l e r s t a t ed 8 in h is a ff

idavit tha t he ha d r ea d, unde rs too d, an d ac ce pte d the r es pons ibi lit ie s of the 9 oa th o f a spe ci al pr ose cu tor a s r ef le ct ed by the f ili ng o f hi s ac ce ptanc e of the 10 ap poi ntm en t. 11 { 8} T he dis tr ic t c ourt de nie d Defen da nt’ s m oti on and p ro ce ed ed to en te r its 12 j udgm en t re fl ec tin g D ef en da nt’ s co nvi ct ion of cr im ina l se xua l pe ne tr at ion of a ch ild 13 unde r ag e thi rt ee n a nd s en te nc ed D ef en da nt t o e igh te eny ears of im pr iso nm en t. T he 14 St at e dis m iss ed

the r em ai nin g c ha rg e of c rim ina l se xua l pe ne tr at ionof ac hil d 15 be tw ee n th e age s of

thi rt ee n a nd e igh te enw ith out pr ej udi ce in co nsi de ra tio n of 1 6 De fe n d an t ’s s en t en ce o f i n ca rc er at i o n an do n t h e g ro u n do f “jud i ci al ef fi ci en cy[. ]”6

1 { 9} On appeal f

rom the district court’ s j udgm ent and sentence, D efendant argues 2 that his conv iction sh ould be rever sed and the m atter rem anded because Mr. Chandler 3 w as not

law fu lly appoi nte d a s sp ec ia l pr ose cutor a nd d id n ot h av e law fu l auth or ity 4 to p ro se cu te the c as e, a nd b ec au se the dis tr ic t c ourt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n over the 5 se co nd tri al of

D efend an t. W e ag re e an d r ev er se the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t and 6 se nt en ce an d re m an d t hi s m at te r to th e d is tri ctco ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . 7 DISC US SION 8 { 10} Wh e th e r , p ur s u an t t o S ec tio n 36 -1 -2 3. 1, Ms
. Martw ic k ha d auth or ity to ap poi nt 9 Mr
. Chan dl er as aspe ci al pr ose cu tor in the S ta te ’ s c as e ag ai nst D ef en da nt, a nd the 10 r e l a t e d qu e st i on w he t he r t he di str i c t c ourt ha d j ur i sd i c t i on ov e r t hi s m a t t e r , are 11 qu es ti on s of law th atwe rev ie w de n ov o. See Sta te v. M cC laughe rty , 2008-NMS C12 044, ¶ 21, 144 N
. M. 483, 188 P. 3d 1 234 (s ta tin g th at aque sti on o f j ur isd ic tio n of the 13 district court that is answered through statu tory c o n struction is review ed de novo). 14 { 11} Section 36-1-23.1, titled “ [s] pecial prosecutors in con fl i ct cases[, ] ” provides 15 that 16 [e] ach district attorney m ay , when he cannot prosecute a ca se for e thical 17 re as ons or oth er good ca use , ap poi nt a pra ct ic ing m em be r of the ba r of 18 thi s st at e to a ct a s sp ec ia l a ssi stant d is tri ct a tto rn ey . A ny pe rs on s o 19 appoin ted shall have autho rity to act on ly in the specific ca se or m atter 20 fo r w hic h th e ap poi ntm en t w as m ad e. A n ap poi ntm en t an d oa th s ha ll be17 B as ed on the ti tle an d th e te xt o f Se ct ion36- 1- 23. 1, it is cl ear tha t, f

or the 2 18 purpos es of and in the context of this case, the designatio n “ special assistant dis trict 19 at tor ne y [] ” is s ynony

m ous w iththe de sig na tio n of “ spe ci al pr ose cu tor [] ” out sid e of 20 the office of

the app o i n t i n g district attorney
. The par ties use the term

“ special 21 prosecutor,” a s do we. 7 1 r e q u i r e do f s p e c i a l a s s i s t a n t d i s t r i c t a t t o rn e ys i n s ub s t a n t i a l l y t h e s a me 2 fo rm

as t ha t re qu ire d fo r as si st an t d is tri ctatt or ne y s[ .] 2 3 { 12} D ef

en da nt c onc ed es a nd w e ag re e tha t M s. Martw ic k ha d auth o r i ty t o d e sig na te 4 ana ssi stant d istri ct

a tto rn ey w ith in h er

ow n of fi ce to pr ose cu te D ef

en da nt, as she did 5 in th e fi rs t t ria l. State v. Cherryhomes , 199 6- N MS C- 072, ¶ 11, 122 N
. M. 687, 930 6 P. 2d 11 39 (stat i ng that where a district attorney

has been appoint ed as special 7 prosecutor in a particular ca se p ursuant to Section 36-1-23.1, he or s he is perm itted 8 to d el eg at e the ta sk o f pr ose cu tio n to an as sis tant distri ct a tto rn ey a ct ing und er

his or 9 he r supe rv isi on)
. D ef en da nt c ont en ds, how ev er , tha t a s sp ec ia l pr ose cu tor Ms
. 10 Martwick di d no t have the auth or ity of a“ dis tr ic t a tto rn ey ” fo r the pur pose of 11 ap poi nti ng a

spe ci al pr ose cu tor

pur suant t o S ec tio n 36-1-23.1. W e agre e. 12 { 13} As the district attorney for th e Fifth Judicial District, Ms. H icks had a statutory 13 duty to pr ose cu te D ef

en da nt on beha lf of the St at e fo r the a lle ge d c ri m es or igi na tin g 14 within Lea

County
. NMS A 1978, § 36-1-18(A) (1) (2001) (“ Ea ch dis t ri ct attorney 15 shall .
. . prosecute . . . f or the state in all courts of rec ord of the counties of his district 16 al l [ cr im ina l] c as es . . . in w hic h th e sta te or a ny c ounty in his distri ct

m ay be apa rty8

1 or m ay be int er es te d[
. ] ”)
. Ms
. H ic ks’ pos iti on al so ves te d he r w iththe law fu l 2 au tho ri ty to ap poi nt a spe ci al pr ose cu tor w he n ethic al re as ons or oth er goo d c au se so 3 required. Sec tion 3 6-1-23.1. When Ms. H icks appoin ted Ms. Martwick t o ac t as 4 spe ci al pr ose cu tor

in thi s m at te r, Ms
. Martw ic k w as ve ste d w iththe li m ite d auth or ity 5 to pro se cu te th e St at e’s cas e ag ai ns t Def en da nt . Sect io n 3 6- 1- 23 .1 (“ Any pers on . . . 6 ap poi nte d [ to a ct

a s sp ec ia l pr ose cu tor ] sha ll ha ve au tho ri ty to ac t onl y in the spe ci fi c 7 ca se or m at te r fo r w hic h the ap poi ntm en t wa s m ad e. ”)
. Ms
. Martw ic k’ s a ppoi ntm en t 8 as special prosecutor authorized her, in e ffec t, to step into the shoes o f t h e d i strict 9 at tor ne y f or the F if th Judi ci al D istri ct sol el y to p ro se cu te a s pr es cr ibe d by S ec tio n 36
- 10 1- 18 (A)(1 ). 11 { 14} N oth ing in th e langu ag e of S ec tio n 36 -1 -2 3. 1 su

ppor ts a c onc lus iontha t the 12 L eg isl at

ur e int en de d a spec ia l pr ose cu tor , appoi nte d f or the pur pose of pr ose cu tin g 13 a single case, to assum e the auth ority with which the appoin ting district attorney wa s 14 vested by

virtue of h aving been elected to the office to appoin t a special prosecutor. 15 Whil e a co nf

lic t m ay ha ve pr ev en te d M s. H ic ks and h er of fi ce f ro m pr osec uti ng 16 D ef en da nt, und er

S ec tio n 36 -1 -2 3. 1, she ne ve rthe le ss re ta ine d th e sta tut or y duty to 17 act on behalf of the Fif th Jud icial D istrict to appoi nt a special prosecutor to do so, a s 18 she did with the appoin tm ent of Ms . Martw ick. Ha ving learned th at Ms . Martwic k 19 could no longer prosecute the case in her stea d, it wa s incum bent upon Ms. H icks, as9

1 the onlyperson with lawf ul autho rity

to do so, to appoin t another special prosecutor. 2 By appoi nti ng M r. Ch an dle r to a ct a s sp ec ia l pr ose cu tor

in D efen da nt ’s cas e, Ms
. 3 Martw ic k un law fu lly

a ssu m ed the e xc lus ive au tho ri ty

of the dis tr ic t a tto rn ey

f or the 4 Fi fth Ju dic ia l D istri ct to app oin t a spe ci al pr ose cu tor

to pr ose cu te am at te r or igi na tin g 5 w ith in the F if

th Judi ci al D istri ct . 6 { 15} W e ar e not

pe rs ua de d by

the Sta te ’s atte m

pt t o e xpl ai n it s po sit iontha t M s. 7 Martw ic k’ s “ tr an sf

er ” of the c as e to M r. Ch an dle r w as law fu l and d id not d ep ri ve the 8 district court of j urisdictio n. W ith no applicable authoritynor any m anageable logic, 9 the State off

ers severa l unsu pported no tions
. The State concentrates on the f act that 10 both M s. Martw ic k a nd M r. Ch an dle r ar e el ec te d di str ic t a tto rn ey s w ho t ook the 11 re qui re d oa ths in tha t r eg ar d a nd h ad sta tut or y pr ose cu tor ia l du tie s, thu s c ur ing a ny 12 co nc er

ns a bout w he the r the appoi ntm en t byMs
. Martw ic k c om porte d w iththe 13 language of Section 36-1-23.1 or crea ted any actual prejudice to De fendant. All that 14 oc cu rr ed , a cc or din g to the S ta te , w as nothin g m or e than asub sti tut ionby Ms
. 15 Martw ic k of

aqua lif ie d a tto rn ey

a s an au th or iz ed

“ hy br id” be tw ee n w ha t the S ta te 16 charac terizes a s a “ regular assistant district a ttorney [] ” and a “ special assistant dis trict 17 attorn ey.” T he Cherryhomes a nd Hollenbeck cas es on whi ch th e St at e rel ie s, see 18 Cherryhomes , 199 6- N MS C- 072, ¶ ¶ 6, 11, a nd St ate v. Hollenbeck , 1 9 9 1
- N M C A
- 0 6 0, 19 ¶¶ 7, 14, 15, 112 N
. M. 275, 814 P. 2d 143, w hic h ar e the onl y ca se s re m ote ly cl ose to10

1 the iss ue he re , in no w ay sup port the S ta te ’ s arg um en t. A nd w e pa rt ic ularl y r ej ec t the 2 St at e’ s im

pli ca tio n, w he n c iti ng t o Cherryhomes a nd Hollenbeck , tha t the le gis la tiv e 3 enactm ents of NMS A 1978, Se ction 36 -1-1 (1909), N MSA 1 978, Section 36-1-5 4 (1 988) , N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 36-1 -2 (1 984) , an d Se ct ion 36- 1- 23. 1 indic at e botha 5 legislative int ent to a llow Ms. Martwic k’ s appoin tm ent of Mr. Chandler or, as m ore 6 d i re ct l y

argued by

the State, if the L egislature had intended to preclude such an 7 ap poi ntm en t de le ga tio n r es pons ibl y it co uld ha ve e as ily don e so. I t w oul d be f

ru itl es s 8 fo r us t o a tte m

pt t o se t ou t in any

m or e de ta il the S ta te ’ s e le ve n- plu s- pa ge dis cu ssi on 9 at te m pti ng t o j ust if

y the sig nif

ic an ce of the se not ion s and i ts p osi tio n onappe al
. 10 { 16} In sum , w e hold that Ms. Martw ick lacked law ful autho ri t y to appoin t Mr. 11 Ch an dle r, Mr
. Ch an dle r la ck ed auth or ity

to pr ose cu te t he S ta te ’ s c as e ag ai nst 1 2 De fe n d an t , a n dt h e d i s t ri ct co u rt l ac k ed ju ri s d i ct i o n o v erDe fe n d an t ’s re -t ri al . “ [I ]f 13 anind ivi dua l w ho d oe s not have au tho ri ty to pro se cu te doe s pros ec ute , the [ dis tr ic t] 14 court will lack j urisdictio n.” Hollenbeck , 19 91 -NMCA- 06 0, ¶ 1 0. Acco rd in gl y , we 15 re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ou rt’s j udgm en t and s en te nc e an d r em an d th is m at te r to the 16 di st ric t co ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . Se e id. ¶¶ 1 4
- 1 5 (r ev er s i n g t h e d ef en d an t ’s 17 convictio n wh er e a s pecial prosecutor’ s appoin tm ent did no t conform to the legal 18 re qui re m en ts o f Se ct ion36- 1- 23. 1)
. Bec au se w e re ve rs e on j ur isd ic tio na l gr ound s,11

1 we d o n o tco n s i d erDe fe n d an t ’s ar g u m en t re g ar d i n g t h e v al i d i t y o f M s . M ar t wi ck ’s 2 reasons for appointin g a special prosecutor. 3 CON CLU SION 4 { 17} W e re verse the district court’ s judgm ent and sentence and rem and this m atter 5 to th e d is tri ctco ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs . 6 { 18} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 8 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e 9 WE CO NCUR:
10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg e
12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 13 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e