State v. Padilla, s. 15098
| Decision Date | 01 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 15098,15127,s. 15098 |
| Citation | 1984 NMSC 26,101 N.M. 58,678 P.2d 686 |
| Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. George PADILLA, Respondent. STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner, v. Charles FUGATE, Respondent. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
These cases have been consolidated since they present the same principal question on appeal. Both of these cases, State v. Padilla and State v. Fugate, involve the question of whether the "jurisdictional exception," as applied to double jeopardy claims, is still the law in New Mexico. We hold that it is.
Defendant Padilla was involved in an altercation with several police officers which resulted from Padilla's attempt to avoid arrest. While two officers were attempting to handcuff Padilla, he kicked a third officer in the groin. Padilla was charged with felony battery on a police officer as well as several misdemeanors, including resisting arrest. Padilla pled guilty to the misdemeanors in magistrate court. At the district court trial on the felony count Padilla moved to dismiss on grounds of double jeopardy, claiming that resisting arrest and battery on a police officer are the "same offense" for double jeopardy purposes. The trial court denied the motion because it found that the jurisdictional exception was applicable in this case. Padilla appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found that the jurisdictional exception was not the law in New Mexico and reversed the conviction. The State brought the case before this Court on writ of certiorari. We reverse. Defendant Fugate was involved in a three-vehicle accident which caused great bodily harm, followed by death, to a passenger of one of the other vehicles. Fugate entered a plea of nollo contendre to charges of DWI and careless driving in municipal court. He was found guilty and sentenced to alcohol treatment. Fugate was subsequently tried and convicted of homicide by vehicle in the district court. Fugate appealed his conviction, claiming that the second trial was barred on double jeopardy grounds. The Court of Appeals reversed Fugate's conviction and the State brought the case before this Court on writ of certiorari. We reverse.
We have recently addressed the question of whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huff, Matter of
...... On May 14, 1987 the Pennsylvania State Police issued two citations charging the Appellant with reckless driving 1 . Page 1095 . [399 ......
-
State v. Rodriguez
...occasions, rejected the argument that Waller implicitly abolished the jurisdictional exception or overruled Diaz. State v. Padilla, 101 N.M. 58, 59, 678 P.2d 686, 687 (1984), aff'd by an equally divided Court sub nom. Fugate v. New Mexico, 470 U.S. 904, 105 S.Ct. 1858, 84 L.Ed.2d 777 (1985)......
-
Salaz v. Tansy, 87-0491 JP.
...... Court decisions establishing that successive prosecutions in different courts of the same state violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States ...State v. Padilla, 101 N.M. 78, 678 P.2d 706 (Ct.App.1983), reversed on other grounds, 101 N.M. 58, 678 P.2d 686 ......
-
State v. Ford, 24,934.
...that an episode much like the one at bar could not be broken down into discreet parts), rev'd in part on other grounds by, 101 N.M. 58, 678 P.2d 686 (1984). {17} Therefore, we can proceed to the second step of the Swafford test, analyzing legislative intent. The statutory elements of the of......