This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was indicted on three counts of fourth-degree felonies related to alleged registration and voting offenses. He claimed that he was selectively prosecuted due to his vocal criticism of the Clovis police department and other local government agencies. The Defendant ultimately pled no contest to one count of false voting in exchange for the dismissal of the other two counts, while reserving the right to appeal the issue of selective prosecution (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, September 6, 1989: The trial court dismissed one of the three counts for reasons unrelated to selective prosecution and denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the remaining two counts. The court also granted the State's motion in limine to exclude evidence of selective prosecution at trial (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that he was selectively prosecuted due to his vocal criticism of local officials, which violated his equal protection rights. He claimed that he was singled out while others similarly situated were not prosecuted and that this selection was based on impermissible considerations, such as his exercise of free speech (paras 4, 7-9).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution. The State argued that the prosecution was based on legitimate grounds and that the Defendant did not provide sufficient evidence of discriminatory intent or purpose (paras 6, 9-11).
Legal Issues
- Was the Defendant selectively prosecuted in violation of his equal protection rights?
- Did the trial court err in excluding evidence of selective prosecution at trial?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for false voting (para 12).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Bivins and Minzner JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the Defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of selective prosecution. To succeed on such a claim, the Defendant needed to show that he was singled out while others similarly situated were not prosecuted and that the selection was based on impermissible considerations, such as the exercise of constitutional rights (paras 7-8).
The trial court provided the Defendant with ample opportunity to present evidence of selective prosecution during the pretrial hearing. The Defendant's motion to dismiss alleged that he was the only one prosecuted among over seventy-five felons who had voted, but this claim was unsupported by persuasive statistical evidence or records. The Court emphasized that arguments of counsel are not evidence (paras 6, 8).
The Court also found no evidence of discriminatory purpose. While the Defendant presented proof of his activism and criticism of local officials, this alone was insufficient to shift the burden to the State to rebut an inference of selective prosecution. The record did not show that local officials targeted by the Defendant's criticism were involved in the decision to prosecute. The prosecution was initiated based on a complaint from reporters, and the Clovis police treated the matter like any other crime (paras 9-11).
The Court concluded that the trial court properly confined the issue of selective prosecution to a pretrial matter and correctly denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss (paras 6, 11).