Court Opinion

ID: 9796935
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:08:39.084575+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:51:49.185392
License: Public Domain

BOSSON, Chief Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part). {40} I concur in Justice Chavez’s thoughtful dissent on double jeopardy, and write separately only because, as a signatory to State v. Vallejos, 2000-NMCA-075, 129 N.M. 424, 9 P.3d 668 (holding that convictions under these same two criminal statutes did not violate double jeopardy), I find myself in the awkward position of reversing fields. I agree with my colleague that for too long our appellate courts have tended to apply Swafford v. State, 112 N.M. 3, 810 P.2d 1223 (1991) and Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) in a formalistic manner. At times it seems as if our appellate courts prefer the ease of looking up statutory elements of a crime, in place of the hard work of examining separately the policy goals and consequences of each criminal statute to divine legislative intent. In my view, in crafting Swafford former Chief Justice Ransom intended the Blockbwrger formula as but a step on the way, not the -destination. My colleague, Justice Maes, has written an excellent opinion faithful to the direction of our precedent, post -Swafford. What we need, perhaps, is a change in direction, and I am grateful to Justice Chavez for providing its initial sketch.