City of Las Cruces v. Apodaca
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-38870 |
| Citation | 516 P.3d 242 |
| Parties | CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Renee APODACA, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
516 P.3d 242
CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Renee APODACA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. A-1-CA-38870
Court of Appeals of New Mexico.
Filing Date: June 8, 2022
City of Las Cruces, Jennifer Vega-Brown, City Attorney, Jocelyn A. Garrison, Senior Assistant City Attorney, Las Cruces, NM, for Appellant
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Joelle N. Gonzales, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
YOHALEM, Judge.
{1} The opinion filed May 17, 2022, is hereby withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted in its place. This is an appeal by the City of Las Cruces (the City), from the district court's decision granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and to bar retrial under the double jeopardy clause of Article II, Section 15, of the New Mexico Constitution, based on judicial and prosecutorial misconduct in municipal court.
{2} The City raises two issues on appeal:1 (1) whether the district court had authority to hear and decide Defendant's motion to dismiss and to bar retrial based on alleged official misconduct in the municipal court; and (2) whether the district court erred in relying on the limited record in the municipal court and the arguments of counsel to reconstruct the events at trial in a court not of record. Finding no error by the district court, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
{3} We describe the municipal court proceedings based on the municipal court record and the arguments of counsel, which were accepted by the district court as the facts on which it based its decision.
{4} Defendant was charged with five misdemeanors in the City of Las Cruces Municipal Court arising from a single incident, (1) aggravated driving while intoxicated, (2) driving on the wrong side of the street, (3) improper turn, (4) open container, and (5) driving without a license. The municipal court dismissed the driving without a license charge before trial. The City produced four DVD's (video recordings) to Defendant without identifying what it intended to introduce at trial. All four contained multiple video clips. The City's pretrial list of exhibits indicated that the City intended to introduce "[a]ny and all videos and photos produced by Plaintiff or Defendant," without further specification.
{5} At trial, the City called Officer Albert Garcia as a witness, and moved to admit one of the video recordings into evidence through his identification. The City did not clarify to Defendant or to the municipal court which of the four video recordings the City was attempting to admit at trial, but indicated only that it was one of the four that had been disclosed to the defense.
{6} Defendant objected to the admission of the video recording, stating that counsel had no way of knowing which of the previously disclosed four recordings the City was moving to admit, or whether the video recording at issue was in fact a true and accurate copy of one of the recordings that had been previously disclosed. Defendant further objected to the admission of the video recording without it being played in open court on hearsay and confrontation grounds. Defendant argued she would have no opportunity to object to the admission of hearsay and violation of Defendant's right to confrontation without the video being played in open court. The City agreed that the video recording contained both admissible evidence and inadmissible hearsay "that was probably probative" on the recording and did not deny that there were statements on the video made by individuals who testified at trial, as well as by individuals not called by the City as witnesses.
{7} The City claimed that it sought to admit only the nonhearsay portions of the video recording but failed to identify with time stamps or otherwise the admissible and inadmissible portions of the video.
{8} The municipal court admitted the video recording over Defendant's objection.2 The City did not play the recording in
whole or in part during trial. The police...
To continue reading
Request your trial