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 multiple charges, including second-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor, sexual exploitation of children, child abuse, and bribery or intimidation of a witness. During trial preparation, the Defendant discovered that the alleged victim had applied for a T-Visa, which could be used for impeachment purposes. The district court ordered the disclosure of the T-Visa application materials, but the New Mexico Immigration Law Center (NMILC) objected, citing confidentiality and attorney-client privilege (paras 1, 3-4).
Procedural History
- District Court: Declared a mistrial due to manifest necessity after a stay was issued by the Supreme Court pending consideration of a related writ petition (paras 1, 9-10).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, May 7, 2024: Granted NMILC’s Emergency Writ Petition, prohibiting the production of the T-Visa application materials and lifting the stay (para 12).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the mistrial was not due to manifest necessity and that his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy should bar retrial (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the mistrial was declared due to manifest necessity, allowing for a retrial without violating the Defendant's double jeopardy rights.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, allowing for a retrial (para 37).
Reasons
Per Vargas, Justice (Thomson, Vigil, and Zamora, JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial due to manifest necessity. The indefinite delay caused by the pending writ petition and the potential juror bias from the improper disclosure of T-Visa application materials constituted extraordinary circumstances justifying the mistrial. The district court's decision was based on a scrupulous exercise of judicial discretion, and no less drastic alternatives were available to ensure an impartial verdict (paras 14-35). The Court also directed the removal of T-Visa application materials from the record, in line with its recent holding in related writ proceedings (para 36).