State v. Hildreth
| Decision Date | 27 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-36833,A-1-CA-36833 |
| Citation | 448 P.3d 585 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry HILDRETH Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Emily C. Tyson-Jorgenson, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Caitlin C.M. Smith, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant
{1} Defendant Henry Hildreth Jr. appeals his misdemeanor and felony convictions for aggravated battery against a household member following a jury trial in which his attorney refused to participate. Defendant raises several arguments. First, Defendant argues, and the State concedes, that Defendant was denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel. Second, Defendant argues the district court judge's conduct during trial should bar his retrial on double jeopardy grounds. Third, Defendant argues the district court abused its discretion in not granting his motions for a continuance and mistrial. Lastly, Defendant claims the amended judgment convicting him of two counts of aggravated battery against a household member based on a single incident constitutes double jeopardy. We agree that the absence of effective representation deprived Defendant of a fair trial and mandates reversal of his convictions. We disagree that the district judge's conduct bars retrial, and thus remand for retrial. In light of our rulings on these issues, Defendant's remaining arguments are moot.
{2} The parties do not dispute the following facts. Defendant was charged in 2016 with misdemeanor aggravated battery against a household member without great bodily harm, NMSA 1978, § 30-3-16(B) (2008, amended 2018) (Count 1), unlawful taking of a motor vehicle, NMSA 1978, § 30-16D-1 (2009) (Count 2), and felony aggravated battery against a household member with great bodily harm (Count 3). Section 30-3-16(C). On July 11, 2016, Steven Seeger (Seeger) entered his appearance as defense counsel for Defendant. Seeger appeared with Defendant at his arraignment on October 21, 2016. Three days later, the district court entered a notice of hearing scheduling Defendant's case for a three-day jury trial starting March 14, 2017.
{3} On Friday, March 10, 2017, Seeger filed a motion on behalf of Defendant seeking a continuance of the jury trial on the basis that, among other things, the State had filed its disclosures and witness list late. Specifically, the State had provided discovery the previous day in the form of a CD that Seeger had not yet had the chance to review. Defendant, who by then had not disclosed his own trial witnesses, stated that to "force [Seeger] to go to trial on March 14, 2017 would deny the Defendant effective assistance of counsel and thereby deny him his [Sixth] Amendment [right] to counsel." The parties appeared before the district court judge on the morning of March 10, 2017 for a pretrial conference, at which time the judge denied the motion for continuance. Seeger responded to the ruling by informing the court: The judge said, "If that is true, then [Defendant] would have excellent grounds for appeal on incompetency of counsel," to which Seeger responded, After the judge pointed out that the trial date had been set for months and that Seeger had ample notice, the following exchange took place:
The district court suggested that Seeger raise any discovery issues by filing motions in limine before trial.
{4} On the morning of trial, Seeger renewed Defendant's motion to continue as well as a motion for sanctions based on the State's late disclosures, which Seeger had filed the day before. Seeger explained that he did not have time to listen to the CD because he spent the weekend attending the wake of a co-worker and facilitating the reassignment of his co-worker's cases to other attorneys. The State responded that it did not come into possession of the CD until March 9, 2017, and stated for the first time that it did not intend to use any of the information on the CD at trial. Additionally, the State pointed out that its amended March 9, 2017 witness list did not include any previously undisclosed witnesses. The judge denied Defendant's motions to continue and for sanctions, telling Seeger, despite Seeger himself having no role in the State's decision to provide a CD less than a week prior to trial that had been set months before, that if Seeger felt he was being "deprived of information, [he] should have filed the motion long before this" and that there was no showing of prejudice based on the late disclosures. In response, Seeger reiterated that he was not going to participate in the trial, and as the trial record demonstrates, he remained steadfast in that decision. Indeed, our review of the record confirms that Seeger played the most marginal of roles at trial: he did not participate in jury selection, give a substantive opening statement, cross-examine any of the State's witnesses, call any witnesses on behalf of Defendant, move for a directed verdict, meaningfully participate in the submission of jury instructions, or give a closing argument. As the following summary reflects, Seeger's active involvement during trial was limited and narrowly confined.
{5} Seeger did not ask the venire any questions and replied "No comment" each time the judge asked for his position on striking a potential juror. After the jury was sworn, Seeger moved for a mistrial, arguing that Defendant had been denied effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion, stating, The judge asked Seeger to confirm "that you are not going to defend this man?" Seeger answered, The trial continued and after the State's opening statement, the judge turned to Seeger and said, "I ask you to remember, as an officer of the court, opening statement is reserved to evidence that is going to be presented." After Seeger responded, "I don't know what you mean," the judge explained, "I mean the weight of your heart at the moment is of no consequence whatsoever to the duty the jury is intended to perform today." Despite the court's admonition, Seeger focused his opening statement not on the anticipated evidence, but on the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and his client's right to counsel. The judge told Seeger that his opening statement was improper and that he would not allow him to proceed. Seeger responded, "I have nothing further then." The judge instructed the jury to ignore the "civics lesson that was presumptuously offered by Mr. Seeger."
{6} The State proceeded to call two of its three witnesses during the morning session. Seeger made no objections during the witnesses' direct examinations and conducted no cross-examinations. After the lunch break, Seeger renewed his motion for a mistrial. He argued that he had looked at the State's late-disclosed CD and saw that it contained statements from three witnesses—including the two that had testified that morning—and Defendant. Seeger stated that he did not have time to listen to the CD or have it transcribed for use in cross-examination and voiced a concern that it might contain information useful to his client's defense. Although the State admitted the CD had been in the possession of an agent of the State before March 9, 2017, the district court nevertheless denied the mistrial motion because it did not believe that Defendant had demonstrated prejudice.
{7} The State called one additional witness. During that witness's testimony, Seeger made a single objection to the admission of an item of physical evidence, which the district court sustained. Seeger made no other objections and conducted no cross-examination of the witness. At the close of the State's case, Seeger told the court that he had hoped to call four or five witnesses but that he had neither disclosed nor subpoenaed them. Seeger did not move for a directed verdict or make any other motions. Before releasing the jury for the day, the court informed the jury that the State had the burden of proof; that Defendant was not required to put on any witnesses of his own; and that Defendant would not be calling any witnesses.
{8} During the discussion about jury instructions, Seeger stated he had not prepared any instructions and proceeded to express concern about the judge's bias in the case. The judge responded, The judge stated that he resented the accusation of bias and encouraged Seeger to report him to the New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission if he believed he (the judge) was biased. At that point, Seeger indicated that he would not oppose any of the instructions tendered by the State. The discussion on jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Direct Criminal Contempt Maestas
...with decisional autonomy regarding when trials commence and when they do not commence. District courts are." 2019-NMCA-047, ¶ 16, 448 P.3d 585, aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds , 2022-NMSC-012, 506 P.3d 354. Maestas's belief that he could not provide effective assistance of cou......
-
State v. Hildreth
...State concede[d], that Defendant was denied his constitutional right to assistance of counsel." State v. Hildreth , 2019-NMCA-047, ¶ 1, 448 P.3d 585. Defendant also argued that "the district court judge's conduct during trial should bar [Defendant's] retrial on double jeopardy grounds." Id.......