City of Las Cruces v. Apodaca
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | A-1-CA-38870 |
| Citation | 2022 NMCA 046 |
| Parties | CITY OF LAS CRUCES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RENEE APODACA, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Released for Publication September 6, 2022.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Conrad F Perea, District Judge
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
{¶1}The opinion filed May 17, 2022, is hereby withdrawn, and this opinion is substituted in its place.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.
{¶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 officers called by the City as witnesses testified briefly, and then relied on the recording to flesh out their testimony. Defendant repeatedly objected, arguing that she was unable to cross-examine the police officers about the recorded statements because her counsel had no information identifying what was on the recording.
{¶9}During closing argument the City relied on the unplayed video recording as evidence of Defendant's guilt. Defendant once again objected, noting that the defense did not have an opportunity to object to the inadmissible evidence on the recording or cross-examine the officers who testified in court with reference to the video evidence. Defense counsel asked the municipal court to grant a directed verdict on the aggravated DWI charge, pointing out that the City failed to elicit testimony from the witnesses at trial on a required element of the charge: that Defendant had been advised, at the time of her traffic stop, that refusal to submit to alcohol breath testing "could result in the revocation of [D]efendant's privilege to drive." UJI 14-4510 NMRA. In response to that motion, the City claimed, without reference to a time-stamp, that the advisement could be heard on one of the four video tracks admitted into evidence, but not played at trial. The municipal court denied Defendant's motion for directed verdict on the basis that the video provided the missing evidence.
{¶10}At the conclusion of the closing arguments, the municipal court judge stated that he would review the video recording in chambers, without either party present. Defendant's counsel objected, citing confrontation clause violations, the improper admission of hearsay, and Defendant's due process right to be present and have the assistance of counsel at all critical stages of the proceedings. The municipal court again overruled Defendant's objection, took the video recording into chambers and reviewed it privately after the conclusion of the trial. Defendant's counsel was not given a copy of the video or otherwise permitted to review it. Six days after trial, the municipal court entered a verdict of guilty on the four remaining counts.
{¶11}Defendant filed a post-trial motion to dismiss with prejudice and to bar retrial alleging prosecutorial and judicial misconduct. Defendant argued that the municipal court's admission into evidence of and reliance on the video recording to convict Defendant of the charges against her violated her right to confront the witnesses against her, denied her due process, and denied her the right to assistance of counsel.
{¶12}Without waiting for a ruling on her post-trial motion, Defendant appealed to the district court. Relying on the limited record of the municipal court proceedings filed in the district court, including the video recording introduced at trial and the statement of facts in defense counsel's post-trial motion, Defendant filed a pretrial motion in the district court to dismiss and to bar retrial. Defendant relied on the holding of our Supreme Court in State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC-067, 122 N.M. 655, 930 P.2d 792, to argue that misconduct by the prosecutor and the municipal court judge violated the double jeopardy clause of the New Mexico Constitution, and, therefore, precluded retrial in the district court.
{¶13}After the hearing on Defendant's pretrial motion and a thorough review of the entire record on appeal from the municipal court, including the video recording admitted into evidence in the municipal court, the district court agreed with Defendant that misconduct barred retrial. The City appealed to this Court.
{¶14}The City contends that, in an appeal from Defendant's conviction in municipal court, the district court lacked authority to hear and decide Defendant's pretrial motion. The City claims that the district court erroneously applied the limited exception identified by our Supreme Court in City of Farmington v. Piñon-Garcia, 2013-NMSC-046, ¶ 11, 311 P.3d 446, by conducting a hearing de novo and deciding Defendant's motion, when instead it should have proceeded to conduct a trial de novo. The City supports its claim by characterizing Defendant's motion as a request to the district court to review an evidentiary decision by the municipal court for reversible error.
{¶15}Although the City is correct that the district court does not act as a typical appellate court in an appeal from a municipal court conviction and generally conducts the appeal by trial de novo, the authority of the district court on appeal from a court not of record extends to hearing and deciding certain pretrial motions that require review of the proceedings in the municipal court. See id. ¶¶ 11-12. We look to the nature of the motion filed in the district court to determine whether the motion is subject to a de novo hearing in the district court under our Supreme Court's decision in Piñon-Garcia. See id. ¶ 12.
{¶16}We are not persuaded by the City's contention that Defendant's motion seeks reversal based on a claim of evidentiary error in the municipal court. Although the municipal court's decision to admit the video recording into evidence over Defendant's objection played a role in the events which underpin Defendant's motion, the motion does not seek reversal and remand for retrial on the basis of the municipal court's abuse of discretion in admitting that evidence. Defendant's motion focused instead on the prejudicial impact on the defense of the prosecution's conduct in failing to identify the recording and to identify the portions of the recording it...
To continue reading
Request your trial