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: Apr il 19, 201 7 4 N o. 34, 506 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 KELSO N L EWIS, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF BER NA LILLO C OUN TY 11 Ju di th K. N ak am ur a, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 La ura E . H orton, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Sergio V iscoli, Appellate D efender 18 B. Douglas W ood III, Assistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 SU TIN, Judge. 3 { 1} D ef

en da nt K el son L ew is app ea ls fr om the dis tr ic t cour t’ s de nia l of

his m oti on 4 to bar retr ial on the charge of c rim inal sexual contact of a m inor (CSCM ) in the third 5 degree. Am ong o ther charges, the indictm ent charged D efendant w ith second d egree 6 CSCM in Count 1. A fter the c lo s e o f t h e St ate’ s evidence at trial, the district court 7 granted the State’ s m otion to am end the CSCM charge f rom second degree to third 8 degree and granted D efend an t ’s m otion to includ e a j ury instruction for the lesser 9 included o ffense o f b at t er y . T he district court declared a m istrial based on jury 1 0 dis ag re em en ta s t o C o u n t1 , d i r e c t e dav e r d i c to f a c qu i t t a l o n C o u n t s 2 a n d3 , a nd 11 De fendant wa s found n ot gui lty of Counts 4 and 5. D efendant asserts on appeal that 1 2 the dis tr ic tc o u rtd i dn o tap p r o p r i a t e l y d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r

t h e j u ry w a s h u n g o n t he 13 ch ar ge of CS CM or the le sse r inc lud ed ba tte ry ch ar ge . T hus, D ef en da nt arg ue s, 14 doub le j eopardy

principles prevent his retrial for CSCM, and the district court err ed 15 in d eny ing his m oti on to bar re tr ia l. Be ca use w e disa gr ee that the r ec or d is a m big uous 16 re ga rd ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s in qui ry int o th e j ur

y de lib er at ion s and the c ha rg e upon 1 7 w h i c h t h e j u ry w a s d e a d l o c k e d , w e a f f i rm.2

1 DISC US SION 2 { 2} De fendant asserts t he district court did n ot properly poll th e j ury

as to whether 3 i t w a s d e a d l o c k e d o n t h e c h a r g e o f C S C M o r t h e l e s s e r i n c l u d e d c h a r g e o f b a t t e ry, 4 an d the re fo re , D ef

en da nt r ec ei ve d an “ im

pli ed a cquit ta l” of

CS CM

. T hus, D ef

en da nt 5 ar gue s th at

r etri al f or CS CM vio la te s the D oubl e Je opardy Cl au se s of

the S ta te a nd 6 Federa l Constitu tions . “ W e review double jeopar dy claim s de novo .” State v. F ielder , 7 2005 -N MC A -1 08, ¶

10, 138 N

. M. 244 , 118 P

. 3d 7 52. 8 { 3} The D oubl e Jeopardy Clause “ has been held to incorporate a broad and general 9 collection of protections against several con ce p t ually separate kind s of harm : (1) a 10 se co nd p ro se cu tio n f

or the sa m e of

fe nse af te r ac qui tta l, ( 2) ase co nd p ro se cu tio n f or 1 1 t h e s a me o f

f e n s e a f t e r c o n v i c t i o n , a n d( 3 ) mu l t i p l e p u n i s h me n t s f o r t h e s a me 12 offense. ” State v. M

onto ya , 2013 -N MS C- 020, ¶ 23, 306 P. 3d 4 26 ( int er na l qu ota tio n 13 m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Whe n ade fe ndant ha s be en ac qui tte d at tr ia l he m ay not 14 be retried on the sam e offense, even if the legal rulings underly ing th e acquittal we re 15 erroneous.” State v. B aca , 2015-NMS C-021, ¶ 34, 352 P.3d 1151 (alter ation, internal 16 qu ot at io n m ark s, an d c it at io n o m it te d) , cert. denied sub nom. Baca v. Ne w Mexico , 17 ___ U

. S. ___ , 136 S

. Ct

. 255 ( 2015 ) (m em . ). Whe re the j ur y is pr ope rl y

ins tr uc te d on 18 a le sse r inc lud ed

of fe nse , a n a cquit ta l or

ahun g jury on the gr ea te r of fe nse doe s no t3

1 pr ecl ud e ret ria l o n t ha t u nc ha rg ed , les se r in cl ud edoff en se . See State v. Collier , 2 2013 -N MS C- 015, ¶

¶ 21- 22, 301 P

. 3d 3 70. 3 { 4} D ef

en da nt r el ie s pr im ar ily

on Rul e 5- 611( D ) N MR

A ; Sta te v . Ca str ill o , 197 7- 4 NMSC -0 59 , 90 N

. M

. 60 8, 5 66 P.2d 11 46 , overruled on other gro unds by State v. 5 W ardl ow , 198 1- N MS C- 029, 95 N

. M. 585, 624 P. 2d 5 27; a nd Sta te v . G arc ia , 200 5- 6 NMC A- 042, 137 N.M. 315, 110 P.3 d 531 , to ar gue that he received an im plied 7 ac qui tta l onCS CM a nd r etri al on tha t c ha rg e w oul d vi ola te his r igh t t o be f re e fr om 8 doub le j eo pa rdy . Re ly ing on the sa m e author ity an d also on Fielder , 20 05 -NMCA9 108, w e co nc lud e tha t D ef en da nt’ s r etrial fo r CS CM doe s no t vi ola te double 1 0 j eo p a r d y . W e b e g i n b y d i s c u s s i n g t h e r e l e v a n tau t h o r i t y a n dt h e n d i s c u s s i n de ta il 11 w ha t ha

ppe ne d a t D ef

en da nt’ s tr ia l and i ts l eg al e ff ec t on his double j eo pa rdy r igh ts. 12 { 5} In Ca str ill o , the c harge of f irst degree m

urder, as w ell as t h e l es ser included 13 of fe nse s of se co nd d eg re e m

ur de r an d vol unt ar

y m an sla ught er , w er e subm itt ed to the 14 j ur y a t the de fe ndant’ s f

ir st tri al

. 197 7- N MS C- 059, ¶ 1. Whe n th e j ur

y w as una ble to 15 re ac h ave rd ic t, the dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ar ed a m istri al w ith out inquir ing a s to w hic h of 16 t he off

en se s t he jury ha d a gr eed an d u po n wh ic h t he jury was de ad lo ck ed

. Id

. ¶ 1 4. 17 The def

endant was tried a

second tim e and wa s found gu ilty of second degree m

urder. 18 Id . ¶ 1. Th e de fen da nt ap pe al ed , arg ui ng hi s s eco nd tri al vi ol at eddo ub le jeop ard y . Id

. 19 O ur S upr em e Co urt hel d, tho ugh the j ur y w as hung be tw ee n acquit ta l and a t l ea st o ne4

1 of the of fe nse s in cl ude d w ith in the m ur de r ch ar ge , “ [t ] he r ec or d [ w as ] si le nt upon 2 which, if any , of the specific included offenses the j ury had agreed and upon which 3 the j ury

had reac hed an im

passe.” Id

. ¶

14. Be ca use the r ec or d w as unc le ar a s to 4 w hic h of

the inc lud ed of

fe nse s wa s the ba sis fo r im pa sse an d the distri ct co urt di d no t 5 co nduc t f

urthe r inquir

y to as ce rt ai n at w hic h le ve l of c ha rg e the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d, 6 our S upr em e Court re as one d that a ny doubt m ust be r es olv ed

“ in f av or of the li be rty 7 of the citizen. ” Id

. ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n ma rk s a n d c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d )

. T h u s , o u r S up r e me 8 Court determ ined that all but the least of the lesser included charges (i. e. , voluntary 9 m an sla ught er ) m ust be dis m iss ed

a nd tha t r etri al of

the de fe ndant o n a ll but

the le as t 10 ch arg e v io la te d d ou bl e jeop ard y . Id

. ¶ ¶ 14- 15. 11 { 6} In G arc ia , thi s C ourt c onsi de re d w he the r the dis tr ic t co ur t erre d w he n it 12 inqu ired w hether the jury wa s deadlocked on the greater offense bu t did no t inqu ire 13 w he the r the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d on the le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse s. 200 5- N MC A -0 42, 14 ¶¶ 2, 10. T he j ur

y in G arc ia w as ins tr

uc te d on fi rs t de gr ee m

ur de r, as w el l a s se co nd 15 de gr ee m

ur de r an d vo lu nt ary m an sl au gh te r as le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se s. Id

. ¶ 2. T he 16 dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ar ed am istri al a ft er

le ar nin g th e j ur

y c oul d no t r ea cha n a gr ee m en t 17 on th e fi rs t d eg ree m

ur de r co un t. Id

. ¶

20. Upon inq

uir y by the dis tr ic t c ourt r eg ar din g 18 the charge of first degree m urder, the foreper son in form ed the court that the j ury wa s 19 u n a b l e t o reac h a un an im ou s v erd ic t o n t ha t ch arg e. Id

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t5

1 co nduc t any

inquir y int o th e j ur

y ’ s de lib er at ion s on th e le ss er inc lud ed c ha rg es of 2 se co nd de gr ee m

ur de r an d m an sl au gh te r. Id

. T hi s Co urt de te rm ine d, ba se d on 3 Ca str ill o an di t s p ro g en y, th e d i s t ri ct co u rt wa s n o t re qu i re dt o i n qu i re i n t o t h e ju ry’s 4 de lib er at ion s re ga rd ing le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse s w he n the dis tr ic t co urt ha d a lr ea dy 5 de te rm in edth e jury was un ab le to reac h a n ag reem en t as to a gr eat er o ffen se . G arc ia , 6 2005 -N MC A -0 42, ¶

17. T his Co urt no te d th at the hol din g w as c onsi ste nt w ithRu le 7 5- 611( D ), w hic h r equir es : 8 If

the j ur y ha s be enins tr

uc te d on one or

m or e le sse r inc lud ed

of fe nse s, 9 and t he j ur

y c a nn ot u nani m ou sl y

a gr e e upo n a ny

o f t he o f f enses 10 subm itt ed , the co urt shal l poll the j ur y by inquir ing a s to e ac h de gr ee of 11 the of

fe nse upo n w hic h th e j ur

y ha s be enins tr

uc te d be gin nin g w iththe 12 high est degree and, in descen d ing order, inquiring as to each lesser 13 de gr ee unt il the c ourt ha s de te rm ine d a t wha t lev el of the of fe nse the 14 j ury

has disagreed. I f upon a poll o f the j ury it is determ ined that the jury 15 ha s u na ni m ou sl y vo te d n ot gu il ty as to a n y de gr ee o f an off

en se , a 16 verdict of not guilt y shall be entered for that degree and for ea ch greater 17 degree of the off ense. 18 Se e G arc ia , 2005-NMC A- 042, ¶¶ 25-27. O n this b as i s, w e concluded the dist rict 19 court did not err in the m anner in which it polled the j ury , and the defendant’s r etrial 20 and convictio n of first degree m urder di d not violate doub le jeopardy because there 21 was a m an ife st ne ces si ty to d ecl are a m is tri al on th atlev el of t he ch arg e. Id

. ¶ 29. 22 { 7} Sh ortly

a ft er our opi nio n in G arc ia , thi s C ourt de ci de d Fielder in w h i c h we 23 considered whether the def endant’ s re trial for sec ond d egree crim inal sexual 24 pe ne tr at ion( CS P II) vio la te d do ubl e j eo pa rdy be ca use the re w as no m an if es t6

1 ne ces si ty to d ecl are a m is tri al on th atch arg e. Fielder , 2005 -N MC A -1 08, ¶¶ 1, 10, 15. 2 T he j ur

y in Fielder

wa s instructed on CSP II and t h i rd d eg ree crim inal sexual 3 pe ne tra ti on (CSP I II ) , a mo n g ot he r ch arg es . Id . ¶ ¶ 5-6. Af ter learning the jury

wa s 4 una b l e t o r e a c h a v e r d i c t o n C S P , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt p o l l e d t h e j u ry r e g ar din g th e 5 num erica l split o f the votes for guilty a n d n o t g u ilty but did not determ ine whether 6 th e jury was de ad lo ck ed on CSP II or th e le ss er i nc lu de d o ffen se of C SP III

. Id

. ¶ 8. 7 T he de fe ndant w as r etri ed on C SP II a nd the le sse r inc lud ed c ha rg e of

CS P II I an d 8 was co nv ic te d o f CSP I II. Id

. ¶ 9. A ga in r el y ing on Ca str ill o an d it s pr oge ny , thi s 9 Co u rt d et er m i n e d , b e c au s e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt d i dn o ti n qu i re i n t o t h e ju ry’s 10 deliberations on the greater offense of CSP II to d eterm ine upon which level of C SP 11 the ju ry d i sagreed, there w as no m anifest necessity to declare a m istrial as to that 12 offense, and the defendant’ s doub le j eopardy rights were violated when he wa s retried 13 fo r CSP I I. Fielder , 200 5- N MC A -1 08, ¶ 15. 14 { 8} Tu rn i n g t o t h e t r i a l i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e , f o l l o w i n g v a r i o u s r e c e s s e s a n dd e l a ys 15 on the thi rd day

of deliberations, the j ury sent a note to the dist rict court asking, “ If 16 w e cannot

c om e to a

unanim ous de ci sio n f

or Co unt 1, do w e m ove on t o 17 dis cu ss/ de ci de on the le sse r ch ar ge fo r Co unt 1?” T he dis tr ic t c ourt r es pond ed w ith 18 a not e sta tin g, “ If

y ou h av e a re as ona

ble doubt a s to gui lt on Co unt 1 on ly the n do y ou 19 m ove to cons ideration of the included o ffense of battery . I f y ou are not unanim ous as7

1 to C ount

1 the n y ou do not m ove on to the inc lud ed of fe nse of ba tte ry . ” A s D ef

en da nt 2 and the State poi n t o u t , i t appears the transcript erroneously indicates two hours 3 elapsed betwee n the jury ’ s first question an d the district court’s r espons e. 4 Approxim ately

thirty m inutes after the district c ourt r espond ed to the jury ’ s first note, 5 the j ury

sent a second note statin g, “ On the count of Crim inal Sexual Contact we are 6 una ble to re ac h aunanim ous de ci sio n of gui lty or not -g uil ty

. S houl d w e m ove on t o 7 the le sse r c h a r g e o f

b a t t e ry ?” T h e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e n tar e s p o n s e s t a t i n g , “N o . H a ve 8 y ou re ac he d a unanim ous ve rd ic t on the oth er co unt s?” Appr oxi m at el y th irty -f ive 9 m inu te s late r, the j ur

y r es pond ed

on the sa m e not e be lowthe dis tr ic t c ourt’ s qu es tio n, 10 “ Ye s, w e have com e to [ a] unanim ous [dec ision ] on [C] ount s 4 and 5.” T he district 11 c ourts e nt

a f i na l no t e t o th e j ur

y a sk i ng , “ A r e y ou f

i ni sh e d de l i be r a t i ng o n C ount 1 ?” 12 T he j ur

y se nt i ts r es pons e w hil e the dis tr ic t c ourt w as stil l on the r ec or d and 13 re spon de d on the sa m e pie ce of pa pe r be low the dis tr ic t co urt’ s que sti on, “ Y es the 14 Jury is finished delib erating on Count 1.” 15 { 9} Fo llo w ing ar eque st f ro m tr ia l c ouns el f

or D ef en da nt, the dis trict c ourt and 16 pa rt i e s di sc us se d po l l i ng t he j ur or s t o de t e rm i ne w hi c h w a y e a c h j ur or

h a d de c i de d 17 Count 1, but th e district court determ ined the j urors could no t be form ally polled as 18 to whether an indiv idual juror voted to acquit or convict. T he j urors we re c alled back 19 int o th e co urtr oom , a nd the dis tr ic t co urt c onf irm ed w iththe f or em antha t “ the re ’ s no8

1 poss ibilityfor j uror agree m ent on Coun t 1[.] ” While it does no t appear trial counsel 2 fo r D ef en da nt re que ste d the j ur

y be pol le d im

m ed ia te ly af

te r tr ia l as t o w he the r the 3 j ury wa s deadloc k ed o n the CSCM charge or the le sser included battery charge, 4 D ef en da nt n one the le ss arg ue d inhis m oti on t o bar ret ria l tha t the c ourt di d no t 5 properly

poll th e j ury

as to the level of the im

passe. 6 { 10} W e note the j ury twice asked whether it shou ld proce ed to c onsid er the batter y 7 ch ar ge if

it w as una ble to re ac h aunanim ous de ci sio n on the CS CM c ha rg e, a nd the 8 district court twice e xplicitl y instructed the j ury

not to con sider the charge of battery 9 unl es s th e j ur

y w as unanim ous tha t it ha d r ea sona ble doubt a

bout D ef en da nt’ s gu ilt 10 of CS CM

. T he co ur t’ s se co nd r es pons e ind ic at es it und er sto od the j ur

y w as una ble 11 to r ea chaunanim ous de ci sio n on the CS CM ch ar ge , an d it sought to de te rm ine if

the 12 j ury wa s still delib erating on the oth er c ount s. I ndeed, th at understandin g was 13 co nsi ste nt w iththe j ur y ’ s e xpr es s st at em en t tha t i t w as “ una ble to re ac h aunanim ous 14 de ci sio n” on the CS CM c ha rg e. T he j ur y ’s n ex t respons e sta te s it ha d r ea ch ed

a 15 de ci sion on th e oth er c ount s, a nd n ota

bly , the j ur

y did not ind ic at e a ch an ge in its 16 de ci sio n onCo unt

1 or that i t ha d no w re ac he d a unanim ous ve rd ic t on an y le ve l of 17 char ge inc lud ed

in Co unt

1. T he j ur

y ’ s f ina l no te state s it

w as f ini she d w ith 18 de lib er at ion s on Co un t 1. A lso not ab le a nd p oin te d ou t by the S ta te , the 19 com m unication s betwee n the district c ourt a nd the j ury consist ently refe r to CSCM9

1 as “ Co un t 1 ” an d b at te ry as t he “ le ss er ch arg e ” o r “ in cl ud edoff en se .” Thu s, we 2 conclude the record of com m unication s m akes clear that the j ury ’ s inabilit y to agree 3 on a fi nd in g o f gu il ty or no t g ui lt y ap pl ie d o nl y

to th e CSC M as pe ctof C ou nt 1. 4 { 11} D ef

en da nt arg ue s th at

w e m ust pr es um e the j ur

y c ont inu ed

de lib er at ion s on 5 Co unt 1 f or appr oxi m at el y

thi rty -f ive m inu te s be tw ee n w he n th e co urt i nstru ct ed the 6 j ur y f or the se co nd t im e to n ot c onsi de r ba tte ry unl es s it

w as unanim ous on 7 D ef en da nt’ s a cquit ta l f

or CS CM an d th e ti m e the j ur y state d it w as f ini she d a s to 8 Co unt 1. D ef en da nt arg ue s th e co urt f ai le d to pol l the j ur

y a fte r th e co nc lus ionof 9 de lib er at ion s in acc or da nc e w ith Ru le 5- 611( D ), w hic h st at es that the c ourt shal l pol l 10 the j ur

y i f t he j ur

y c a nn ot un a ni m ou sl y a gr e e up on t he of f e ns e s su bm i t t e d a nd that 1 1 an ya m

b i g u i t y r e s u l t i n g f

r o m t h e l a c k o f f

o rm a l p o l l i n g s h o u l d b e r e s o l v e din his 12 favor. 13 { 12} W e not e tha t i n Ca str ill o a nd Fielder the rec ord was silent regar ding the level 14 o f c h a rg e at whi ch th e jury was hu ng . Se e Ca str ill o , 1 9 7 7

- N M S C

- 0 5 9 , ¶ 14 15 (dism issin g on double j eopardy ground s all but the least of the lesser included charges 16 w he n th e re co rd

w as unc le ar

a s to w hic h of

tho se of fe nse s w as the ba sis f

or the 17 im passe and the dist rict court did not cond uct furth er i n quiry to ascertain at which 18 le ve l of

c ha rg e the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d) ; Fiel der , 200 5- N MC A -1 08, ¶ 15 19 (determ ining no m anifest necessity existed to declare a m istrial on the charge of CS P10

1 II be ca use the dis tr ic t c ourt di d not inqui re int o the j ur y ’ s deli be ratio ns to de te rm ine 2 upon which level of CSP the j ury disagreed). In contrast, the record shows the jury 3 in the present case tw ice indicated it wa s hung on the CSCM c harge. 4 { 13} D ef

en da nt a sse rt s th at

the le ve l of

de ad loc k is am

big uous be ca

use thi rty -f

ive 5 m inu te s e la

pse d be fo re the c onc lus ionof de lib er at ion s, dur ing w hic h th e j ur y c oul d 6 have a c qu i t t e d D e f

e nd a nt o f C S C M a nd

h un g ont he b a t t e ry

c har ge , h ow e ver, 7 D ef en da nt d id n ot d ev el op any f acts a t the ti m e the j ur

y r et ur ne d it s ve rd ic ts o r 8 de m onstrate the re w as a ny que sti on r eg ar din g th e le ve l of de ad loc k. W e not e a doub le 9 j eo pa rdy

c ha lle nge ne ed

not be pr es er ve d. T he re m

ust , how ev er , e xis t a

f ac tua l ba sis 10 in th e rec or d fo r th e arg um en t. Se e Sta te v. W ood , 1994-NMC A- 060, ¶ 19, 117 N. M. 1 1 6 8 2 , 8 7 5 P

. 2 d1 1 1 3 ( a c kn o w l e d g i n g d o ub l e j e o p a r d y i s s u e s ma y b e r a i s e da ta n y t i me 12 “ ei the r be fo re or

a ft er j udgm en t, ” but pr ovi din g that “ a fa ct ua l basi s m

ust appe ar in 13 the r ec or d i n or de r to s uppo rt suc h c la im ”) ; se e als o State v . A nti llo n , 1 4 2 0 0 0

- N M S C

- 0 1 4 , ¶

6 , 1 2 9 N

. M

. 1 1 4 , 2 P

. 3 d3 1 5 ( r e c o g n i z i n g d o ub l e j e o p ar d y c l a i ms 15 m ay not be w ai ve d and c iti ng W ood f or the pr opos iti on tha t a

double j eo pa rdy 16 de fe nse “ m

ust be sup porte d by

af ac tua l ba sis in the r ec or d” ); State v. Sanchez , 17 1996 -NMCA- 089, ¶

11, 122 N

. M. 280 , 923 P

. 2d 1 165 (s ta tin g th at the appe llate 18 co urts p la ce the bur de n on the pa rty ra isi ng the doub le j eo pa rdy c ha lle nge to pr ovi de 19 a su ffi ci en t re co rdforap pe ll at e an al y si s o f th e is su e).11

1 { 14} Ba se d on the j ur y ’ s no te s st at ing it

w as hun g and the re fo re una ble to re sol ve 2 the c ha rg e of

CS CM a nd i ts la te r co nf irm at ion tha t i t w as una

ble to ag re e on C ount 3 1, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld tha t the j ur y w as hun g an d obvi ousl y unde rs too d the le ve l of 4 ch ar ge upo n w hic h th e j ur y w as de ad loc ke d. Mo re ove r, D ef en da nt a lso appe ar s to 5 ha ve und er sto od the j ur y to be de ad loc ke d onthe CS CM c ha rg e, be ca use he onl y 6 re que ste d the j ur

y be pol le d to de te rm ine ind ivi dua l vo te s f or a nd a ga ins t c onvi ct ion 7 an d di d no t e xpr es s any que sti on ab ou t th e le ve l of the j ur y ’ s im pa sse or r eque st 8 polli ng at the tim e to resolve an y a m b i g uity . B ey ond Defendant’ s argum ent that 9 further deliberat i o n m ay have occurre d, nothing in the record suggests an 10 int er pr et at ion oth er than that the j ur y w as de ad loc ke d onthe CS CM c ha rg e. I nde ed , 11 the district court’ s po st-deliberation qu estionin g of the forem an and the unsi gned 12 ve rd ic t f

orm s r eg ar din g C ount

1 f urthe r ce m en t the jury’ s inabi lity to ag re e as to 13 Co unt 1, a nd g ive n th e fa ct s of the c as e, in pa rt ic ular, CSCM . Thu s, ba se d onthe 14 extent of the record bef ore us, w e decline to speculate w hether the j ury later a cquitted 15 De fendant of CSC M and to presum e a double je opardy violatio n ba s ed upon that 1 6 s p e c u l a t i o n wh e n a l l e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r di n d i c a t e s t h e c o n t r a ry. 17 { 15} D ef

en da nt co nt en ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t stri ct ly c om ply w iththe 18 m andatory

language of Rule 5-611(D) when it deter m i ned the level of deadlock 19 thr oughnot es e xc ha nge d be tw ee n th e j ur y a nd the dis tr ic t cour

t, rathe r than th ro ugh12

1 a m or e fo rm al iz ed

pol lin g pr oc es s e m

plo y ed a t the ti m e the j ur

y de liv er ed its ve rd ic ts 2 on the oth er

c ount s. T hus, D ef

en da nt ass er

ts the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to s tr ic tly 3 adhe re to the r equir em en ts o f Ru le 5- 611( D ) ba rs his r etri al on C SCM o n do ubl e 4 j eo pa rdy

gr ound s. W ith out

opi nin g as to w ha t w oul d c onst itu te a n a de qua te 5 “ fo rm al iz ed

pol lin g pr oc es s” as a m at te r of law , w e hol d tha t i n th is c as e, w he re the 6 co m m uni ca tio ns e vid en ce j ur

y dis ag re em en t on the CS CM c ha rg e, to re ve rs e w oul d 7 be to read Ru le 5-6 11 (D) m or e te ch ni cal ly tha n s ub st an ti ve ly. 8 { 16} W e hol d th at

the not es e xc ha nge d bet ween the j ur y a nd the dis tr ic t c ourt, 9 co upl ed

w ith th e ve rb al c onf

irm at ionf ro m the f or em anthat the j ur

y w as una ble to 10 ag re e on C ount

1, de m onstrate the j ur

y w as de ad loc ke d on CS CM an d sa tis fi ed the 11 intent o f R ul e 5

- 61 1( D )

. T o ho l d othe rw i se w ou l d be t o e xa l tf or m o ve r s ub stance, 12 w hic h w e de cl ine to do

. See State ex rel. Children, You th & Fam ilies Dep’t v

. 13 Ben ja min O. , 200 7- N MC A -0 70 , ¶ 39, 141 N

. M. 692 , 160 P

. 3d 6 01 ( “ [W ] e do n ot 14 exalt form

over substance.”)

. 15 { 17} Be ca

use the r ec or d de m onstrate s th e j ur y w as de ad loc ke d on the c ha rg e of 16 CS CM , w e co nc lud e m an if es t ne ce ssi ty ex ist ed to de cl ar e a m istri al on th at char ge 1 7 a n dd o ub l e j e o p a r d y d i dn o ta t t a c h

. A c c o r d i n g l y, w e a f f i rm. 18 { 18} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 19

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 20 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e13

1 I CONCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 J. M IL ES HA N IS EE , Ju dg e14

1 GAR CIA , Jud ge (dissent ing). 2 { 19} I re spectfully

dissent in this case. This i s not a pos t-deliberation poll ing case. 3 Po st -d el ib erat io n p ol li ng was n ev er co nd uc te d b y th e di st ric t co ur t i n t hi s ca se . See 4 Ma j or ity O p. ¶ 9. A lth oughour

de ci sio ns i n G arc ia a nd Fielder give som e guidance 5 to r es ol ve the c or

re ct w ay to pol l a j ur y , both in vol ve d post-d

el ibe rat ion pol lin g

of 6 the j ury , and whether, pursuant to Rule 5-611(D), the j ury wa s correc tly

polled after 7 de li be rat io ns were co m pl et ed

. Se e G arc ia , 2005- N MC A -0 42, ¶ ¶ 27- 29; Fielder , 8 2005 -N MC A -1 08, ¶

¶ 8- 11. I n th e pr es en t c as e, the dis tr ic t co urt m ad e a re as ona ble 9 an d c le ar

inquir y r eg ar din g a pot en tia l de ad loc k onCo unt 1 duri ng j uryde lib erati ons 10 but fai le d to pol l the jur y aft er jur y de lib erati ons we re c onclud ed, a s required under 11 Rule 5-611(D). Maj orit y Op

. ¶¶ 8 -9. I t is this failure to ever poll the jury after 12 d el i b erations ceased, som e thirty -five m inutes after the inquiry during jury 13 de lib er at ion s, tha t ali gns thi s ca se m or e cl ose ly w iththe c ir cu m stanc es in Ca str ill o . 14 See Ca str ill o , 1977-NMS C-059, ¶ 14 ( establishi ng that po st-deliberation po lling wa s 15 not don e re ga rd ing the inc lud ed of fe nse s re la te d to the m

ur de r ch ar ge ). Be ca

use no 16 polli ng w as ever done in this case, as the m aj ority agree s is a re qui re m en t

und er Ru le 17 5- 611( D ), it is not thi s Co urt’ s r ole to ch an ge or m odi fy the unam big uous r equir em en t 18 in Ru le 5-6 11 (D) reg ard in g p ol li ng th e jury. Se e Majo ri ty O p. ¶ ¶ 11, 15; se e als o 19 State v. M

onto ya , 201 1- N MC A -0 09, ¶

8, 149 N

. M. 242 , 247 P

. 3d 1 127 (r ec ogni zi ng15

1 tha t i nte rp re ta tio n of

aS upr em e Co urt r

ule is a que sti on of la w an d the pla in m eanin g 2 rule applies wher e the language of the rule is “ clear and unam

bigu ous” (internal 3 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). 4 { 20} T he iss ue tha t co nc er ns m e is w he the r our Su pr em e Co urt simul ta neousl y 5 int en de d to c re at e a ru le r equir ing th e po ll ing of the j ur y w hil e al so p ro vid ing f

or 6 case-by -case exceptions to p o l l i n g—where this Court then attem pts to in terpret 7 que sti ons an d an sw er s ex ch an ge d be tw ee n the dis tr ic t co urt an d the jury d ur ing 8 de lib er at ion s. T he m aj or ity is co rr ec t w he n it

c onc lud es that on e re as ona ble 9 in te rp ret at io n o f th e jury dead lo ckis sue w oul d supp or t i ts in te rp ret at io n. See Ma j or ity 10 O p. ¶ ¶ 14, 16. T he iss ue , how ev er , is not about apot en tia lly

r ea sona ble int er pr et at ion 11 that this Cou rt can m ake re garding inq uiries an d questio ns occurring during j ury 12 de lib er at ion s, it

is ab out w he the r our

S upr em e Co urt w an ts u s to m ak e the se 13 int er pr et at ion s onac as e- by -c as e ba sis

. 14 { 21} Although the district court m ay have m ade a r easonable and adequate inqu iry 15 re ga rd ing the ba sis f

or the j ur y ’ s a lle ge d de ad loc k onCo unt 1, tha t i nqui ry

w as m ad e 16 dur ing the tim e tha t del ibe ratio ns we re sti ll ongo ing an d it fai le d to f ulf ill the pol lin g 17 re qu ire m en ts o f Ru le 5- 611( D ) af te r j ur y de lib er at ion s w er e co m

ple te d. T he onl y 18 questio n resolved after the j ury com pleted its delib erations established th at “ there 19 [w as ] no poss ibi lity fo r j ur or ag re em en t on Co unt 1. ” A spe ci fi c inquir y r eg ar din g th e16

1 pr im ar y of fe nse of CS CM a nd the le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse of ba tter y w as not 2 ad dr es se d a ft er

de lib er at ion s ce as ed

. A ny co nf usi on or am

big uity re ga rd ing pos sib le 3 ch an ge s inthe j ur

y ’ s po sit ionthat m ay

have oc curr ed

dur ing the f

ina l thirty -f

ive 4 m inu te s of de lib er at ion on Co unt 1 w as not re sol ve d by the r equir ed

pos t- de lib er at ion 5 p o l l i n g o f

t h e ju ry. 6 { 22} If

our Su pr em e Co urt m an da te d tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt i s r equir ed to re m ove a ny 7 potenti al for c onfusio n or am bigu ity regar ding which offe nses a j ury has deadlocked 8 ove r, the n po st- de lib er at ionpol lin g un de r Ru le 5- 611( D ) is n ot o pti ona l. I f the re is 9 room for this Court to resolve confusion or am bigu ity regarding which offenses a j ury 10 has de ad l o ck ed over, without po st-deliberation po lling , then the m aj ority has 11 ad equa te ly

ide nti fi ed on e po tenti al e xc ep tio n to Ru le 5- 611( D ). I be lie ve tha t any 1 2 ex ce pti on t o t h e p o l l i n g r e qu i r e m e n tu n d e r R u l e 5

- 6 1 1 ( D ) m

u s tb e l e f

tt o our 13 Supr em e Co ur t an d s ho ul d n ot be m ad e b y th is Co ur t. Se e A le

xa nder v

. D el

gado , 14 1973 -N MSC- 030, ¶ 9, 84 N. M. 717 , 507 P. 2d 77 8 (“ The gener al rule is that a court 15 low er in rank tha n th e co urt w hic h m ad e the de ci sio n in voke d a s apr ec ed en t c an not 16 de via te ther ef

ro m a nd d ec ide c ontrary

to tha t pr ec ed en t, ir

re spe ct ive of

w he the r it 17 co nsi de rs the r

ule la id dow n ther ei n as cor re ct or inc or

re ct

. ” (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks 18 and citation om itted)). “ This [C] ourt is boun d by [S] uprem e [C] ourt rules.” Shai n v. 19 B irn baum , 199 1- NMCA-0 92 , ¶ 5, 112 N

. M. 700 , 818 P

. 2d 1 224; se e Sta te e x re l.17

1 M artin ez v. Cityof La s V

egas , 200 4- N MS C- 009, ¶ ¶ 20- 22, 135 N

. M. 375 , 89 P

. 3d 2 47 ( co nf

irm ing tha t the Co urt of Appe al s r em ai ns b ound by S upr em e Co urt pr ec ed en t 3 but is inv ite d to ex pla in an y re se rv at ion s tha t it m ay ha rb or , w ith on e exc ep tio n 4 allowing for a review of uniform j ury instructio ns that have not previousl y been ruled 5 upon by

the Suprem e Court). 6 { 23} A s ar e s u l t , I d o n o ta g r e e w i t h t h e ma j o r i t y’ s d e v i a t i o n f

r o m o u r S up r e me 7 Co urt’ s r

ule

. P oll ing und er

Ru le 5- 611( D ) is a r equir em en t a ft er a ll j ur y de lib er at ion s 8 h a v e c e a s e da n da r e c o mp l e t e d

. An y m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e “ s h a l l p o l l t h e ju ry” 9 r e qu i r e me n ts e tf

o rt h i n R u l e 5

- 6 1 1 ( D ) mu s t b e l e f

t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f

o u r S up r e me 10 Co urt and i s no t a

dis cr et ion ar

y m at te r tha t this Co urt sh oul d un de rt ak e on the ba sis 1 1 o f i n f e r e n c e , t e c h n i c a l i t y, o r

s ub s t a n c e o v e r

f o rm.

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e 14 TIMOT HY L. GAR CIA , Jud ge (dissent ing).