State v. Ratchford

• Decision Date: 03 June 1993
• Docket Number: No. 20592,20592
• Citation: 1993 NMSC 24,855 P.2d 556,115 N.M. 567
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monroe RATCHFORD, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 556

855 P.2d 556

115 N.M. 567

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Monroe RATCHFORD, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 20592.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

June 3, 1993.

Tom Udall, Atty. Gen., Bill Primm, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellant.

Albert J. Rivera, Alamogordo, Cindi L. Pearlman, Tijeras, for appellee.

OPINION

MONTGOMERY, Justice.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals certified this appeal to us,¹ stating in its order of certification that resolution of the issue on appeal "involves a question of significant public importance and certification of the issue is the most expedient and efficient disposition." As framed by the Court of Appeals, the issue is: "[U]nder what circumstances does a trial court have jurisdiction to grant a new trial in a criminal case when the written order is not filed within thirty days of the motion[?]"²

The jurisdictional issue certified by the Court of Appeals arises because of the State's insistence, here and in the Court of Appeals, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant's motion for a new trial because the trial court's action--its "grant" of defendant's motion--did not occur until more than thirty days had passed after filing of the motion. The State's position in this respect is necessarily predicated on its further position that the trial court's oral ruling granting the motion, before thirty days had passed from the date the motion was filed, was ineffective as a grant of the motion, so that the court had no jurisdiction to enter the written order once the thirty days had passed.

In our view, the trial court's jurisdiction to grant a new trial was not diminished by the rule on which the State relies, Rule 5-614(C) of our Rules of Criminal Procedure (quoted below). That rule provides that a motion for a new trial is automatically denied if it is not granted within thirty days from the date it is filed. We hold that a trial court's oral ruling granting a motion for new trial satisfies the requirement in Rule 5-614(C) that the court grant the motion within thirty days after the motion is filed to avoid the consequence of an automatic denial if it does not. So holding, and finding the State's other grounds for appeal without merit, we affirm the trial court's order granting a new trial and remand for further proceedings.

I.

On June 4, 1990, defendant was convicted by a jury of criminal sexual contact of a minor. He timely filed a motion for a new trial on June 8, 1990.³ The trial court heard and orally granted defendant's motion at a hearing on July 3, 1990. The court subsequently entered a written order granting the motion on August 3, 1990.

In its order, the trial court recited that the motion had been heard on July 3 and found, reiterating most of its oral findings as made at the hearing, that defendant's conviction was the product of "fundamental and cumulative error, including but not limited to the following:"

(1) The State had been guilty of prosecutorial misconduct in its closing and rebuttal arguments because the prosecutor had expressed his own opinion as to the truthfulness of witnesses, had referred to matters outside the evidence, had asked the jury to consider the consequences of its verdict, had invited the jurors to put themselves in the place of the child, and had implied that acquittal of defendant would require conviction of a police officer witness of perjury and of falsifying police reports.

(2) The court had allowed a juror, who said he could not sit fairly on the case, to remain on the panel.

(3) The jury had been repeatedly advised of a videotaped interview of the child, but the videotape was never introduced.

(4) The evidence supporting the conviction was weak, consisting only (in addition to the child's testimony) of unreliable testimony by the police officer concerning an obliquely inculpatory statement by the defendant.

(5) A victim-impact study ordered by the court following the trial revealed additional inconsistencies and contained an opinion that the child was not suffering from trauma associated with sexual abuse.

On August 30, 1990, the State appealed to the Court of Appeals from the trial court's August 3 order granting defendant a new trial.⁴ In its docketing statement, the State challenged the court's grounds for granting a new trial. The Court of Appeals responded with a calendar notice proposing summary affirmance of the order granting a new trial, on all but one of the grounds relied on by the trial court. Generally, the Court of Appeals' calendar notice noted that a trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a motion for a new trial and that an order granting a new trial will not be reversed absent a clear and manifest abuse of that discretion, citing State v. Gonzales, 105 N.M. 238, 731 P.2d 381 (Ct.App.1986), cert. quashed, 105 N.M. 211, 730 P.2d 1193 (1987).

The State responded with a memorandum in opposition, raising for the first time the argument that eventually led to the Court of Appeals' certification to this Court: that the trial court had lost jurisdiction to grant defendant's motion for a new trial by virtue of the automatic denial provision in Rule 5-614(C). In its memorandum, the State did not challenge any of the grounds on which the trial court had relied in granting a new trial; in fact, the State admitted that it probably could not "carry the burden of demonstrating a clear and manifest abuse of discretion by the district court." The memorandum moved to amend the docketing statement to raise the jurisdictional issue; and the Court of Appeals, in a second calendar notice, granted the motion and proposed summary reversal.

Defendant then brought the proposed summary reversal to the trial court's attention whereupon the court entered an order granting a new trial nunc pro tunc as of July 3, 1990, or alternatively requesting remand for that purpose. The court noted that defendant's motion had been orally granted from the bench on July 3, 1990; that defendant had not received a fair trial; and that the court was convinced that had defendant received a fair trial he would not have been convicted. The court continued that judicial economy, as well as justice, required entry of a written order formalizing the oral order nunc pro tunc ; that judgment and sentence had not yet been entered; and that, had they been, defendant could appeal and the appeal "would most likely result in a new trial due to the unfairness of the trial defendant received." The State promptly appealed from this second order, and the Court of Appeals considered the two appeals together, thereby effectively consolidating them.

The Court of Appeals then issued a third calendar notice, reassigning the case to the general calendar and ordering full briefing. In its briefs, the State argued only the validity of the order granting a new trial (as allegedly having exceeded the court's jurisdiction) and the propriety of the later nunc pro tunc order. The Court of Appeals then certified the case to this Court as set out in the introduction to this opinion.

II.

Rule 5-614(C) reads in pertinent part: "If a motion for new trial is not granted within thirty (30) days from the date it is filed, the motion is automatically denied." SCRA 1986, 5-614(C) (Repl.Pamp.1992). Whatever may be the jurisdictional effect of failures to comply with time requirements in other rules (or, for that matter, in this particular rule), it is apparent that the first question to be answered, before a jurisdictional question is even reached, is whether a court or a party has failed to comply with an applicable time requirement. As applied to the present case, this means that we must first determine whether the trial court did or did not "grant" defendant's motion for new trial within thirty days from the date it was filed.

In its certification to this Court, the Court of Appeals stated that defendant's position--that the trial court's oral ruling of July 3, 1990, constituted a grant of his motion--sought expansion of the plain meaning of Rule 5-614(C) and a ruling that the rule's automatic denial provision was a housekeeping rule and not jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals cited Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez, 111 N.M. 336, 805 P.2d 603 (1991), in which this Court held that the "deemed denied" provision of our statute governing interlocutory appeals (NMSA 1978, Subsection 39-3-4(B) (Repl.Pamp.1991)) was not jurisdictional, but was a mere "housekeeping" rule designed to assist courts in managing their cases.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that this case presents a question of substantial public interest, but we disagree that the case requires us to determine whether the automatic denial provision of Rule 5-614(C) is either jurisdictional or a Lovelace -type housekeeping rule. On the contrary, because we find that the trial court's oral ruling constituted a grant of defendant's motion within the meaning of Rule 5-614(C), it is unnecessary for us to consider any jurisdictional issue (or, as stated supra at note 2, the propriety of the nunc pro tunc order).

III.

The State argues that the trial court's oral ruling "was not a timely, legally effective order that would comply with Rule 5-614." To support its argument, the State relies on several cases from this Court and the Court of Appeals holding oral rulings ineffective for various purposes: Smith v. Love, 101 N.M. 355, 356, 683 P.2d 37, 38 (1984) (appeal does not lie from an oral ruling); State v. Page, 100 N.M. 788, 793, 676 P.2d 1353, 1358 (Ct.App.1984) (oral ruling is ineffective to adjudge defendant incompetent to stand trial); State v. Sanders, 96 N.M. 138, 142, 628 P.2d 1134, 1138 (Ct.App.1981) (oral ruling is ineffective to deprive defendant of custody of child); and State v. Rushing, 103 N.M. 333, 334, 706 P.2d 875, 876 (Ct.App.) (court had authority to change orally pronounced sentence before entry of written judgment and sentence), cert. denied, 103...