Court Opinion

ID: 9795826
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 03:39:29.433888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:38:04.508035
License: Public Domain

PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice (dissenting). PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice (dissenting). MAES, Chief Justice (Dissenting). {28} Regretfully, I must dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution bars Defendant’s trial on charges of first degree murder. I concur with the majority’s analysis of the federal Constitution. {29} Article II, Section 15 applies when a defendant has faced multiple charges, been convicted, and successfully overturned that conviction on appeal. N.M. Const, art. II, § 15. It provides that such defendants “may not again be tried for an offense or degree of the offense greater than the one of which he was convicted.” Id. The Court of Appeals, in certifying this case to this Court, indicated its belief that the plain language of the text clearly and unambiguously established that Defendant could not face trial for any greater charges than those he faced in the first trial. As the majority has indicated, the question before us is the meaning of the phrase “again be tried.” I believe the phrase “again be tried” is susceptible to two constructions. The majority concludes that the phrase refers to any subsequent prosecution, rather than the charges tried in the first trial, such that a defendant may not be tried for any offense or degree of offense greater than the one for which he or she was initially convicted. I disagree. I agree with the State that the phrase “again be tried” means that a defendant cannot be tried a second time on the same charges brought in the first trial. In other words, the clause only precludes retrial on those charges that were included in the indictment or information prior to the first trial. In my opinion, the plain text of Article II, Section 15 should not be read to bar Defendant’s prosecution on charges of first degree murder. {30} I begin my analysis with a discussion of the history behind Article II, Section 15, because I believe the history explains the purpose behind New Mexico’s unique provision. Constitutional History {31} New Mexico’s first Bill of Rights, promulgated in 1846 by Brigadier General Kearny, articulated protection against double jeopardy. The Kearny Bill of Rights provides, in relevant part: “That no person after having once been acquitted by a jury can be tried a second time for the same offense.” Kearny Bill of Rights, cl. 8 (1846). After annexation, a movement for statehood resulted in a draft constitution; delegates assembled in Santa Fe in 1850 and soon after the Constitution of 1850 was ratified. See Chuck Smith, The New Mexico State Constitution, A Reference Guide 2-4 (1996). The Double Jeopardy Clause of the 1850 constitution was similar to the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Kearny Bill of Rights. It provides, in relevant part that “[n]o person, after acquittal, shall be tried for the same offence.” N.M. Const, art. I, § 12 (1850). New Mexico’s quest for statehood at that time was rejected by the U.S. Congress, which voted to make New Mexico a territory of the United States rather than a state. See Smith, supra, at 4; see also Organic Act Establishing the Territory of New Mexico (1850). As a territory of the United States, New Mexico became subject to the federal constitution. See Organic Act, § 17. {32} During the late nineteenth century, other movements for statehood gathered momentum and state constitutions were drafted in 1872 and 1889. See Smith, supra, at 4-8. The Double Jeopardy Clause of the 1872 constitution utilized language similar to that found in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution1 and many other state constitutions,2 providing, in relevant part that “[n]o person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” N.M. Const, art. II, § 10 (1872). The drafters of the 1889 constitution used very similar language in their double jeopardy clause. That clause provides, in relevant part: “[N]or shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” N.M. Const, art. II, § 4 (1889). {33} In 1910, another constitution was drafted. This constitution would become the Constitution of the State of New Mexico. At the constitutional convention, the Committee on Bill of Rights proposed using the same language used in the 1889 version (“nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense”). See Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention of the Proposed State of New Mexico Held at Santa Fe, New Mexico, October 3, 1910, to November 21, 1910 at 82 (Press of the Morning Journal 1910). The Committee of the Whole Convention recommended amending the clause to add: and when the indictment or accusation upon which any person is put to trial and convicted contains different offenses or different degrees of the same offense, and a new trial is granted the accused, he may not again be tried for an offense or degree of the offense greater than the one of which he was first convicted. Id. at 85. The Committee on Revision and Arrangement on Bill of Rights adopted the recommendation with one minor change (the word “first” was omitted) as Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution. See id. at 197. {34} In deciding to add the final clause to the double jeopardy provisions, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention significantly departed from the double jeopardy clauses formulated by the drafters of the 1850, 1872, and 1889 constitutions, as well as from the language used in the double jeopardy clauses of most other states and the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. A review of federal jurisprudence3 during this time period suggests that the final clause may have been written into our state Double Jeopardy Clause in response to a 1905 decision of the United States Supreme Court. {35} In Trono v. United States, 199 U.S. 521, 26 S.Ct. 121, 50 L.Ed. 292 (1905), three defendants had been tried for first degree murder by a court in the Phillippines. At the conclusion of trial, each of the defendants had been acquitted of murder but found guilty of assault. Id. at 522, 26 S.Ct. 121. The defendants appealed their convictions. Id. On appeal, the Supreme Court of the Phillippines set aside the judgment of the trial court and found the defendants guilty of second degree murder. Id. The defendants appealed their convictions to the United States Supreme Court, alleging that the appellate court’s actions in reversing the trial court’s judgment and finding them guilty of second-degree murder violated their protection against double jeopardy.4 Id. at 528, 26 S.Ct. 121. The United States Supreme Court affirmed the Supreme Court of the Phillippines. Id. at 535, 26 S.Ct. 121. The Court reasoned that, by challenging their convictions, the defendants had waived their double jeopardy rights to the entire case. See id. at 533, 26 S.Ct. 121. In so holding, the Court expressly rejected the doctrine, adopted by a number of state courts, that a defendant who appealed his or her conviction only waived his or her double jeopardy rights as to that offense (as opposed to all offenses charged). See id. at 530-33, 26 S.Ct. 121. {36} Following Trono, the delegates to the 1910 Constitutional Convention would likely have understood that the generalized language used in the 1889 New Mexico Constitution and written into the 1910 New Mexico Constitution, “nor shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense,” would be susceptible to the same construction that the United States Supreme Court had given to substantially similar language in Trono. I cannot say with absolute certainty that those drafting the New Mexico Constitution added the final clause to Article II, Section 15 of the New Mexico Constitution in order to dispel any notion that the delegates approved of Trono and to ensure that courts would not construe the New Mexico double jeopardy clause in a similar manner. At the time of enactment, however, the final clause of Article II, Section 15 gave New Mexico residents greater protection than they had previously received under the federal Constitution. {37} In my opinion, the final clause of Article II, Section 15 expresses what later became the implied acquittal doctrine, which was adopted in Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88, 78 S.Ct. 221, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). In that case, the United States Supreme Court observed: [Defendant] was in direct peril of being convicted and punished for first degree murder at his first trial. He was forced to run the ga[u]ntlet once on that charge and the jury refused to convict him. When given the choice between finding him guilty of either first or second degree murder it chose the latter. In this situation the great majority of cases in this country have regarded the jury’s verdict as an implicit acquittal on the charge of first degree murder. Green, 355 U.S. at 190, 78 S.Ct. 221. In so holding, the Green Court effectively overruled Trono. See Green, 355 U.S. at 197-98, 78 S.Ct. 221 (limiting Trono to “its peculiar factual setting,” based on traditions in Philippine courts). I think the drafters of Article II, Section 15 included the language referring to multiple charges to address the circumstances that we now describe as an implied acquittal. Thus, I believe the language is intended to apply when higher charges are brought in the first trial but the jury returns a verdict on the lesser crime or lesser degree of crime. Once that doctrine was adopted by the United States Supreme Court, Article II, Section 15 no longer provided additional constitutional protections in this particular area. At that point Article II, Section 15 became co-extensive with the protections under the federal constitution in this area. Based on that conclusion, I would hold that Article II, Section 15 does not bar Defendant’s prosecution for first degree murder in this case, because Defendant was not impliedly acquitted of first degree murder. {38} I recognize, however, that my construction of Article II, Section 15 renders the final clause essentially meaningless today, in that it is solely a restatement of the implied acquittal doctrine and provides no greater rights to defendants. As a general rule, this Court avoids such constructions. See Denish v. Johnson, 1996-NMSC-005, ¶37, 121 N.M. 280, 910 P.2d 914 (“[N]o part of a constitutional provision should be interpreted so that it is rendered meaningless or superfluous.”). I do not believe I have violated that principle of construction by concluding that Article II, Section 15 diverged from the federal Constitution at the time it was ratified but is now coextensive with the federal constitution. The clause was not meaningless at the time our Constitution was ratified. {39} We have no power “to enlarge the scope of constitutional provisions beyond their intent.” Bd. of Educ. v. Robinson, 57 N.M. 445, 450, 259 P.2d 1028, 1032 (1953). Some scholars divide constitutional provisions into two categories. See, generally, Ronald Dworkin, Freedom’s Law 73-73 (1996). Some clauses contain prohibitions that are very specific; these are couched in concrete language. See, e.g., N.M. Const, art. II, § 9 (“[N]o soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war except in the manner prescribed by law.”). Other clauses contain prohibitions stated in abstract terms, such as the Due Process or Equal Protection clauses. See N.M. Const, art. II, § 18. While the language in the first clause of Article II, Section 15 is abstract and establishes general principles, the language at question in this case is concrete. For that reason, I do not think that we should now interpret the language of the final clause of Article II, Section 15 to include any additional protections not contemplated by the drafters. The Plain Language of Article II, Section 15 {40} The majority, concluding that the protections embodied in Article II, Section 15 extend beyond the implied acquittal doctrine, has held that a defendant may not be tried for any offense or degree of offense greater than the one for which he or she was initially convicted. That conclusion is based on an interpretation of the phrase “again be tried.” Moving beyond the historical analysis of Article II, Section 15, I believe our case law also supports a different interpretation of that phrase than that adopted by the majority. {41} Only one prior case has construed the language at issue here. See State v. Martinez, 120 N.M. 677, 905 P.2d 715 (1995). In that case, the defendant was charged with attempted murder and aggravated battery. Id. The jury was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted murder charge, but convicted the defendant of aggravated battery. Id. The issue on appeal was whether the State could retry the defendant for attempted murder. Id. at 678, 905 P.2d at 716. The defendant, relying on both Article II, Section 15 and Section 30-1-10, argued that aggravated battery is a lesser included offense of attempted murder and that the State could not retry him for attempted murder. Id. at 678, 905 P.2d at 716. The Court concluded that the defendant could be retried on the higher. Id. Because there was an affirmative showing that the jury was unable to reach a verdict on the attempted murder charge, there was no implied acquittal of that charge. See id. at 679-80, 905 P.2d at 717-18. The State was free to retry the defendant on the attempted murder charge. See id. {42} The Martinez Court cited State v. Sneed, 78 N.M. 615, 617, 435 P.2d 768, 770 (1967), for the proposition that Section 30-1-10 “precludes retrial of a greater offense only after acquittal of that offense.” The Court of Appeals suggested that the interpretation adopted in Martinez was incorrect because it relied on an overly broad interpretation of Sneed. I agree that Sneed merely stated the general rule that the State can retry a defendant who successfully appeals his or her conviction. Sneed, 78 N.M. at 617, 435 P.2d at 770. Nonetheless, while the Martinez Court may have overstated the holding of Sneed, I think it adopted the correct interpretation of Article II, Section 15 and Section 30-1-10. I think that both Article II, Section 15 and Section 30-1-10 apply only in cases where a defendant has been charged with multiple degrees of a crime, or multiple crimes, but was convicted of a lesser degree or lesser crime. {43} If the majority’s interpretation of the language were correct, then the subsequent prosecution would have been barred in Martinez as well. In that case, the indictment charged different offenses. After the defendant was convicted of the lesser charge, he was granted a new trial based on improperly admitted evidence. Therefore, Article II, Section 15 would have applied to the defendant in Martinez. Based on the majority’s interpretation of the language, the defendant in that case could not have been retried on a higher charge than the one for which he was originally convicted. The Martinez Court, however, concluded that neither Article II, Section 15, nor its codifying statute barred retrial in that case. I believe the same is true here. {44} Defendant argues that Martinez is distinguishable because the jury failed to return a verdict on the higher charge in that case. Thus, according to Defendant, Martinez merely applied the general rule that the state can retry a defendant after a jury fails to return a verdict. Defendant is correct in observing that when a jury is unable to reach a verdict, the second trial is a continuation of the first, and the defendant therefore is only placed in jeopardy once. Martinez, 120 N.M. at 678, 905 P.2d at 716. The same is true, however, when a defendant successfully overturns a conviction. Retrial after reversal on any ground other than insufficient evidence is “[a]t the opposite end of the spectrum” from an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes. County of Los Alamos v. Tapia, 109 N.M. 736, 743, 790 P.2d 1017, 1024 (1990). In such a case “society’s interest in administering its laws completely overrides the defendant’s interest in freedom from [the] hardships [of retrial].” Id. As the United States Supreme Court explained, when a defendant is successful on appeal, his conviction is “wholly nullified and the slate wiped clean.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 721, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969).5  {45} Based on this analysis of the plain language of Article II, Section 15 and Section 30-1-10, I would conclude that the State may, without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of our state’s constitution, amend the criminal information to allege a higher degree of crime against a defendant who has successfully appealed a conviction for the lesser degree of the crime. In this case, as in Martinez, there was no implied acquittal. Defendant thus stands in the same position he did before his first trial began. At that point, the State would have been entitled to file an amended information with new charges. In my opinion, the State can do the same thing now. Article II, Section 15 does not operate as a bar to bringing higher charges when reprosecuting a defendant who has successfully appealed a conviction. {46} Such a conclusion does not leave a defendant with no protection in such eases. Instead, the State’s charging decision is constrained by the Due Process Clause, which prohibits vindictive prosecution. See Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21, 28, 94 S.Ct. 2098, 40 L.Ed.2d 628 (1974); State v. Brule, 1999-NMSC-026, ¶ 6, 127 N.M. 368, 981 P.2d 782. That doctrine prevents the State from bringing a higher charge as retribution for a defendant’s successful appeal. In this case, the State claimed that its decision to bring new charges was based on new information that became available after Defendant’s successful appeal. The trial court found that the State’s decision was not motivated by vindictiveness. I agree with the majority that Defendant’s due process claim is not before us at this time. {47} For the reasons stated above, I dissent. I CONCUR: PATRICIO M. SERNA, Justice.  . The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, in relevant part, "nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”   . See Alaska Const, art. I, § 9 ("No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.”); Ariz. Const, art. II, § 10 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Cal. Const, art. I, § 15 ("Persons may not twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense...."); Del. Const, art. I, § 8 ("[N]o person shall be for the same offense twice put in jeopardy of life or limb...."); Fla. Const, art. I § 9 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense...."); Haw. Const, art. I, § 10 (Stating: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy....”); Idaho Const, art. I, § 13 ("No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense....”); Ill. Const, art. I, § 10 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Kan. Const. Bill of Rights, § 10 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); ICy. Const. § 13 ("No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of his life or limb...."); Me. Const, art. I, § 8 ("No person, for the same offense, shall be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”); Mich. Const, art. I, § 15 ("No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.”); Minn. Const, art. I, § 7 ("[N]o person shall be put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense....”); Miss. Const, art. Ill, § 22 ("No person's life or liberty shall be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense....”); Mont. Const, art. II, § 25 ("No person shall be again put in jeopardy for the same offense previously tried in any jurisdiction.”); Neb. Const, art. I, § 12 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Nev. Const, art. I, § 8 ("No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense....”); N.Y. Const, art. I, § 6 ("No person shall be subject to be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense. ...”); N.D. Const, art. I, § 12 ("No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Ohio Const, art. I, § 10 ("No person shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Or. Const, art. I, § 12 ("No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same of-fence [sic]...."); Pa. Const, art. I, § 10 ("No person shall, for the same offense, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb....”); R.I. Const, art. I, § 7 ("No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy.”); S.C. Const, art. I, § 12 ("No person shall be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty...."); S.D. Const, art. VI, § 9 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense...."); Tenn. Const, art. I, § 10 ("[N]o person shall, for the same offence, be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”); Utah Const, art. I, § 12 ("[N]or shall any person be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Va. Const, art. I, § 8 ("[No person] shall ... be put twice in jeopardy for the same offense.”); Wash. Const, art. I, § 9 ("No person shall ... be twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.”); W. Va. Const, art. Ill, § 5 ("[N]or shall any person ... be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty for the same offence [sic]."); Wis. Const, art. I, § 8 ("[N]o person for the same offense may be put twice in jeopardy of punishment. ...”).   . Notwithstanding New Mexico’s movements for statehood in 1850, 1872, and 1889, New Mexico remained a federal territory subject to the federal constitution until statehood was achieved in 1912.   . Defendants' double jeopardy rights stemmed from an act of Congress providing for the rights of a person accused of a crime in the Phillip-pines, which stated that "no person for the same offense shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment.” See id. at 528, 26 S.Ct. 121. The U.S. Supreme Court noted that the language of the act of Congress was substantially taken from the Bill of Rights set forth in the U.S. Constitution, and stated they would construe the double jeopardy question raised by the case "as if it arose in one of the Federal courts in this country.” See id. at 528-29, 26 S.Ct. 121.   . The majority points to some minor differences between the language in the constitutional provision and the codifying statute. The differences may indeed have some significance, and we must presume that they do. Nonetheless, I do not think these differences have significance in this case.