State v. Martinez
| Decision Date | 01 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | S-1-SC-37938 |
| Citation | 503 P.3d 313 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Julian A. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Petitioner. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, Charles Agoos, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner
Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Eran Shemuel Sharon, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent
{1} In this opinion, we clarify that the return of a jury's guilty verdict does not divest a district court of its inherent authority to determine whether the evidence presented at trial was legally insufficient to support a conviction. We also conclude that the State may appeal such a determination without offending the principles of double jeopardy. We reverse and remand to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings to consider the sufficiency of the evidence.
{2} The Court of Appeals determined, without actually reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, that the district court did not have the authority to review the sufficiency of the evidence after it accepted the jury's verdict. See State v. Martinez , A-1-CA-37798, mem. op. ¶¶ 1-3, 2019 WL 5095722 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2019). Therefore, we recount only the facts relevant to whether the district court had authority to rule as it did, which are minimal and, primarily, procedural.
{3} Defendant Julian A. Martinez was charged with committing multiple crimes, including criminal sexual penetration, battery against a household member, and false imprisonment. At trial, the district court denied Defendant's motion for a directed verdict, determining that there was sufficient evidence presented to submit the questions of guilt on five counts to the jury. The jury returned two guilty verdicts, convicting Defendant of criminal sexual penetration and battery against a household member, and the district court accepted the verdicts. Two days later, on its own motion, the district court vacated both convictions, concluding that the State failed to establish that Defendant was the person who committed the crimes. The State appealed.
{4} The Court of Appeals summarily reversed the district court in a nonprecedential, memorandum opinion, relying almost entirely on language quoted from State v. Torrez , 2013-NMSC-034, ¶ 10, 305 P.3d 944 : "A district court does not have the authority to override a jury's verdict and enter a verdict different than that handed down by the jury." Martinez , A-1-CA-37798, mem. op. ¶¶ 2-3. Defendant petitioned this Court for certiorari review, which we granted. See Rule 12-502 NMRA (). We now determine whether a district court's authority to review the sufficiency of the evidence ends when the jury returns a verdict. We conclude it does not.
{5} Whether a district court has the authority to determine the evidence was insufficient postverdict is a legal question we review de novo. See State v. Gonzales , 2005-NMSC-025, ¶ 21, 138 N.M. 271, 119 P.3d 151 (); State v. Frank , 2002-NMSC-026, ¶10, 132 N.M. 544, 52 P.3d 404 ().
{6} The New Mexico Rules of Criminal Procedure "are intended to provide for the just determination of criminal proceedings [and] shall be construed to secure simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay." Rule 5-101(B) NMRA. These rules are applied with an understanding of a court's "inherent power to see that a [defendant's] fundamental rights are protected in every case" and that "[every] court has the power, in its discretion, to relieve [a defendant of the error] and to see that injustice is not done." State v. Cunningham , 2000-NMSC-009, ¶ 12, 128 N.M. 711, 998 P.2d 176 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "Because a court's inherent power is at the core of judicial authority, it is the province of this Court to define the contours of that power." State ex rel. N.M. State Highway and Transp. Dep't v. Baca , 1995-NMSC-033, ¶ 20, 120 N.M. 1, 896 P.2d 1148.
{7} With this in mind, we conclude that nothing in Torrez or the cases upon which the State relies alters a district court's inherent authority to determine that the evidence presented was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction. See Martinez , A-1-CA-37798, mem. op. ¶¶ 2-3. This conclusion does not alter, but rather strengthens, two requirements of our Rules of Criminal Procedure: (1) A district court's duty to examine the sufficiency of the evidence prior to submitting a question of guilt to the jury and (2) the prohibition of a district court from invading the fact-finding province of a jury. See Rule 5-607(E), (K) NMRA (establishing the "order of trial" and providing that "out of the presence of the jury, the court shall determine the sufficiency of the evidence, whether or not a motion for directed verdict is made"); Rule 5-701(A) NMRA ( ).
{8} Whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain a verdict is a question that "may and should be raised by the court of its own motion, if necessary to prevent a miscarriage of justice." Ansley v. United States , 135 F.2d 207, 208 (5th Cir. 1943).
{9} The State maintains that Torrez bars the district court's sufficiency review once the jury has returned a guilty verdict. The State also argues that our Rules of Criminal Procedure as construed by State v. Davis , 1982-NMCA-057, 97 N.M. 745, 643 P.2d 614, and State v. Willyard , 2019-NMCA-058, 450 P.3d 445, similarly bar such review. We disagree, as the proper application of these cases depends on the procedural context in which they are applied and none of the cases relied upon by the State answer the question raised here. We address each separately.
{10} The holding in Torrez resulted from a defendant's second appeal following a second trial. See Torrez , 2013-NMSC-034, ¶ 5, 305 P.3d 944. "In his first trial, efendant was charged with first degree murder under two alternative theories: felony murder and depraved mind murder." Id. ¶ 6 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 30-2-1(A) (1994) (). The jury convicted Torrez under a general verdict, which meant that it "did not specify whether its verdict was based on felony murder, depraved mind murder, or both." See Torrez , 2013-NMSC-034, ¶ 10, 305 P.3d 944. Disregarding the nature of a general verdict, the district court entered a judgment indicating Defendant committed first-degree (felony) murder but did not commit first-degree (depraved mind) murder. Id. ¶¶ 6, 10. The propriety and effect of entering a judgment specifying a single alternative theory of conviction after a jury returns a general verdict based on more than one alternative was not raised by either party or addressed as part of the first appeal. See State v. Torrez , 2009-NMSC-029, ¶ 1, 146 N.M. 331, 210 P.3d 228 (). Instead, the convictions were reversed because of wrongly admitted "expert testimony." Id. ¶ 34.
{11} In Torrez's second appeal following retrial, he advanced a double jeopardy claim and argued that he could not be retried for depraved mind murder because the district court's prior judgment indicated he had been acquitted. Torrez , 2013-NMSC-034, ¶ 8, 305 P.3d 944. This Court held that a district court cannot select one theory of conviction and acquit a defendant of the alternative theories when a jury renders a general verdict because a district court "[cannot] know under which theory [a defendant is] convicted" and "does not have the authority to override a jury's verdict and enter a verdict different than that handed down by the jury." Id. ¶¶ 6, 9-10. Thus, the issue in Torrez was procedurally and substantively different from the issue in this case. Entering a different verdict in the context presented by Torrez invades the province of the jury. Id. ¶ 10 ; see Rule 5-701(A) ; cf. State v. Garcia , 2011-NMSC-003, ¶ 5, 149 N.M. 185, 246 P.3d 1057 ().
{12} However, in this case, the province of the jury was not invaded. Rather than assessing witness credibility or weighing evidence, the district court considered the evidence supporting the conviction and applied the proper standard to determine the evidence was legally insufficient. See State v. Galindo , 2018-NMSC-021, ¶ 12, 415 P.3d 494 (). Thus, we reject the application or expansion of the holding in Torrez to this case. We next address Davis , on which Torrez relied and which the State argues supports affirming the Court of Appeals.
{13} The State maintains that the Court of Appeals’ decision is supported by Davis , which concluded that "[t]he trial court did not comply with its mandatory duty to rule on the sufficiency of the evidence." 1982-NMCA-057, ¶ 11, 97 N.M. 745, 643 P.2d 614. The Davis Court then summarily applied two procedural...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Law Offices of the Pub. Def.
...the time the motion was granted. State v. Martinez, A-1-CA-37798, mem. op. ¶ 2 (N.M. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2019) (nonprecedential), rev'd, 2022-NMSC-004. This Court reasoned that district court does not have the authority to override a jury's verdict and enter a verdict different than that han......