State v. Garcia, A-1-CA-36295
| Decision Date | 25 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-36295,A-1-CA-36295 |
| Citation | 463 P.3d 483 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ysidro Robert GARCIA, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, John Kloss, Assistant Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, C. David Henderson, Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
{1} The State appeals from the district court's order granting Defendant Ysidro Garcia's motion to reconsider a prior district court judge's denial of Defendant's motions for mistrial. The State contends the district court erred in ordering a new trial because (1) Defendant did not file his motion to reconsider within the post-verdict time limit set forth by Rule 5-614(C) NMRA ; (2) the district court misapprehended what occurred at trial; and (3) the State's witness referred to Defendant's invocation of his Fifth Amendment right to counsel on only one occasion, immediately after which the district court gave a curative instruction. Concluding Defendant's motion to reconsider was untimely, we reverse and remand for sentencing.
{2} Defendant was arrested on charges1 of receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-16D-4 (2009), and went to trial before a jury in September 2016. Before separately discussing the relevant post-trial proceedings, we first briefly review the portion of the trial proceedings on which Defendant's motions were premised.
{3} At trial, the State elicited testimony from Albuquerque Police Department Detective Joel Block about his interactions with Defendant at the police station following his arrest. When asked by the prosecutor what Defendant told him in the interview room at the police station, Detective Block said, Defense counsel promptly objected, asked to approach the bench, and moved for a mistrial. Then, presiding Judge David N. Williams asked the prosecutor, "Why did you elicit that?" The prosecutor responded, "Just to see if there w[ere] any admissions from [D]efendant." Defense counsel argued that "there's been a comment on the fact that [Defendant] invoked his [Fif]th Amendment ... right to be silent[,]" and made the first motion for a mistrial. Judge Williams denied Defendant's motion and stated that, in order to cure any prejudice arising from Detective Block's testimony, the court would instruct the jury that it was not to infer Defendant's guilt from his stated wish to speak with an attorney. Judge Williams then asked the prosecutor whether he knew Detective Block "was going to say [Defendant] asked for an attorney[,]" which the prosecutor denied. Judge Williams found there to be no "deliberate misconduct" by the State, and then provided the following curative instruction:
Ladies and gentlemen, in this country, somebody that[ has been] arrested has an absolute right not to say anything to the police officers and has an absolute right to ask for an attorney if he or she wants one. You are not permitted, may not draw any inference at all about the testimony you heard that [Defendant] asked for an attorney.
{4} After giving the instruction, Judge Williams asked if each juror understood the instruction and whether the jury could assure the court that it would refrain from using that statement "in any way" when evaluating the evidence. The jurors responded affirmatively, and during the remainder of the trial, neither party referred to Detective Block's testimony that Defendant asked for a lawyer while he was in custody.
{5} After the jury returned a guilty verdict and the district court dismissed the jurors, Defendant renewed his earlier motion for a mistrial. The district court denied the renewed motion.
{6} On January 11, 2017, the district court entered a notice setting Defendant's sentencing hearing. The following day, the case was reassigned from Judge Williams to Judge Cindy Leos. On January 23, 2017, more than four months after the trial ended, Defendant filed an opposed motion to reconsider the district court's previous denials of Defendant's initial and renewed motions for a mistrial, contending again that the State's elicitation of Detective Block's testimony constituted "an impermissible comment on Defendant's silence." The State opposed the motion. At the outset of a hearing on Defendant's motion in March 2017 Judge Leos stated that, based on her review of the trial transcript, the question before the court was whether a new trial was necessary due to Detective Block's testimony regarding Defendant's wish to speak with an attorney. Judge Leos opined that the trial "was fundamentally flawed," and that "[Defendant's] constitutional right to remain silent and for the jury to not necessarily have any knowledge of that ... was impacted[,]" and concluded that a new trial was required.
{7} During argument on Defendant's motion, the State contended that (1) the district court's curative instruction was sufficient to prevent any prejudice to Defendant, and (2) Defendant's motion to reconsider was untimely, arguing that the timing of Defendant's motion suggested "improper forum shopping or [an] attempt to circumvent the decision of Judge Williams[,]" and that the proper course of action would be for Defendant to file an appeal with this Court. In response, Defendant argued that because judgment had not yet been entered in the case, the district court could reconsider any previous rulings in the case. Defendant also reiterated his underlying contention that, based on Detective Block's testimony regarding Defendant's request for an attorney, the "jury was tainted and any decision [reached thereafter] is questionable."
{8} Following argument, Judge Leos repeated her conclusion that the trial was "fundamentally flawed," adding that, in her view, the curative instruction "made things worse for [Defendant], not better." Finding that "the trial was flawed, [and that Defendant's] right to a fair trial was impacted by [Detective Block's] testimony[,]" Judge Leos granted Defendant's motion to reconsider and ordered a new trial. The State now appeals.
{9} The State argues the district court erred in ordering a new trial for three reasons: (1) the time limits under Rule 5-614(C) precluded a new trial in Defendant's case; (2) Judge Leos misapprehended what took place at the trial presided over by Judge Williams; and (3) the misapprehensions led Judge Leos to erroneously find prejudicial error had occurred at trial. After review of the record, we conclude that Defendant's motion to reconsider was untimely, and we therefore need not address the State's additional arguments.
{10} This case requires us to (1) examine whether Rule 5-614 applies to a motion that seeks a new trial but is styled as a motion to reconsider; and (2) if so, whether Defendant's motion was time-barred Rule 5-614(C).
{11} "We review de novo questions of law concerning the interpretation of Supreme Court rules and the district court's application of the law to the facts." State v. Foster , 2003-NMCA-099, ¶ 6, 134 N.M. 224, 75 P.3d 824. We begin by observing while a motion for reconsideration would not typically be controlled by Rule 5-614, our appellate courts have held that when a motion's substance and effect is that of a different motion than that which was filed, we treat the motion substantively and procedurally based on the relief it seeks, an analysis that includes requirements for timeliness. In State v. Baca , our Supreme Court rejected an attempt to characterize the defendant's "motion for a premature termination of the trial for procedural reasons" as a request for an acquittal, concluding that "substance rather than labels" controls and that to conclude otherwise would mean a party "could simply misuse merits terminology to mask the true nature" of the relief sought. 2015-NMSC-021, ¶ 42, 352 P.3d 1151. Similarly, in Chapel v. Nevitt , this Court relied on "the language of the order and the relief that it sought" to determine whether an inaptly titled "motion to modify" should be considered under Rule 1-059(E) NMRA () or as a motion to reconsider filed under to NMSA 1978, Section 39-1-1 (1917). 2009-NMCA-017, ¶ 18, 145 N.M. 674, 203 P.3d 889. Given our similar past resolution of misnamed motions seeking relief of a nature identified within and governed by a particular rule, we can conclude that when a motion's substance and effect is that of a motion for a new trial and a new trial is unambiguously the relief sought, Rule 5-614, along with the timeliness requirements set forth in Subsection (C) thereof, apply regardless of the motion's title.
{12} We now apply Rule 5-614 to Defendant's motion. Rule 5-614(C) requires that "[a] motion for a new trial based on [any grounds other than newly discovered evidence] shall be made within ten (10) days after verdict or finding of guilty or within such further time as the court may fix during the ten (10) day period." Where, as here, "our state court rules closely track the language of their federal counterparts, we have determined that federal construction of the federal rules is persuasive authority for the construction of New Mexico rules." Albuquerque Redi-Mix, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 2007-NMSC-051, ¶ 9, 142 N.M. 527, 168 P.3d 99. Rule 5-614 was based on Rule 33 of the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure and closely tracks the language of its federal counterpart. See State v. Lucero , 2001-NMSC-024, ¶ 8, 130 N.M. 676, 30 P.3d 365 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial