deferential substantial evidence standard in New Mexico

2023State v. Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 ; Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 .

2023State v. Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 ; Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 .

2019However, “on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, where factual issues are intertwined with a double jeopardy analysis, we review the district court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review.” State v. McClaugherty, 2008-NMSC-044, ¶ 46 , 144 N.M. 483 , 188 P.3d 1234 . {7} “The dismissal of criminal charges for prosecutorial misconduct is an extreme sanction that should be reserved for the most severe prosecutorial transgressions.” State v. Gonzales, 2002-NMCA-071, ¶ 14 , 132 N.M. 420 , 49 P.3d 681 .

2019However, “on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, where factual issues are intertwined with a double jeopardy analysis, we review the district court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review.” State v. McClaugherty, 2008-NMSC-044, ¶ 46 , 144 N.M. 483 , 188 P.3d 1234 . {7} “The dismissal of criminal charges for prosecutorial misconduct is an extreme sanction that should be reserved for the most severe prosecutorial transgressions.” State v. Gonzales, 2002-NMCA-071, ¶ 14 , 132 N.M. 420 , 49 P.3d 681 .

2012State v. Neal, 2007-NMSC-043, ¶ 15 , 142 N.M. 176 , 164 P.3d 57 .

2012State v. Neal, 2007-NMSC-043, ¶ 15 , 142 N.M. 176 , 164 P.3d 57 .

2025“We generally review double jeopardy claims de novo . . . , [but] where factual issues are intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis, we review the trial court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review.” See State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 450 , 134 P.3d 737 (citation omitted). {8} The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no “person [shall] be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” State v. Baca, 2015-NMSC-021, ¶ 20 , 352 P.3d 115 (omission,

2020State v. Baca, 2015-NMSC-021, ¶ 25 , 352 P.3d 1151 .

2020“However, where factual issues are intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis, we review the [district] court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review.” Id. {14} “Multiple punishment problems can arise from both ‘double-description’ claims, in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes, and ‘unit- of-prosecution’ claims, in which an individual is convicted of multiple violations of the same criminal statute.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 .

2020“However, where factual issues are intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis, we review the [district] court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review.” Id. {14} “Multiple punishment problems can arise from both ‘double-description’ claims, in which a single act results in multiple charges under different criminal statutes, and ‘unit- of-prosecution’ claims, in which an individual is convicted of multiple violations of the same criminal statute.” State v. Bernal, 2006-NMSC-050, ¶ 7 , 140 N.M. 644 , 146 P.3d 289 .

2026However, where claims in which factual issues are intertwined with a 3 district court’s legal analysis as to prosecutorial vindictiveness, we review the 4 district court’s factual determinations under the “deferential substantial evidence 5 rule.” Id. (noting that the deferential substantial evidence rule applies because “the 6 district court plays an important role in ferreting out evil prosecutive motives 7 [which] . . . often turn on the facts of the case.” (internal quotation marks and citation 8 omitted)). 9 {32} “[T]o establish a claim of vindictive prosecution, the defendant must show 1

2025“Constitutional jeopardy attaches . . . in a bench trial when the trial judge first starts hearing evidence.” Id. ¶ 46. “[W]here a mistrial is granted not at the behest of [a] defendant, a second trial is precluded by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution unless it can be said that there was a ‘manifest necessity’ or ‘compelling reason’ for the granting of a mistrial.” State v. Sedillo, 1975-NMCA-089 , ¶ 5, 88 N.M. 240 , 539 P.2d 630 ; see also State v. Spillmon, 1976-NMSC-048 , ¶ 3, 89 N.M. 406 , 553 P.2d 686 (explaining that “when a jury is disch

2025“Constitutional jeopardy attaches . . . in a bench trial when the trial judge first starts hearing evidence.” Id. ¶ 46. “[W]here a mistrial is granted not at the behest of [a] defendant, a second trial is precluded by the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution unless it can be said that there was a ‘manifest necessity’ or ‘compelling reason’ for the granting of a mistrial.” State v. Sedillo, 1975-NMCA-089 , ¶ 5, 88 N.M. 240 , 539 P.2d 630 ; see also State v. Spillmon, 1976-NMSC-048 , ¶ 3, 89 N.M. 406 , 553 P.2d 686 (explaining that “when a jury is disch

2023State v. Begaye, 2023-NMSC-015 , ¶ 13, 533 P.3d 1057 ; Swafford v. State, 1991-NMSC-043 , ¶ 25, 112 N.M. 3 , 810 P.2d 1223 .

2021We therefore reject Defendant’s equal protection argument. [MIO 10-12] And in light of the foregoing considerations, as well as Defendant’s failure request a continuance in order to facilitate any adjustment of his defense strategy, we similarly remain unpersuaded by his due process claim of unfair surprise. [MIO 9, 13-15] See State v. Barraza, 1990-NMCA-026 , ¶ 13, 110 N.M. 45 , 791 P.2d 799 (“Failure to request a continuance undermines [a] defendant’s claim of unfair surprise.”).

2021We therefore reject Defendant’s equal protection argument. [MIO 10-12] And in light of the foregoing considerations, as well as Defendant’s failure request a continuance in order to facilitate any adjustment of his defense strategy, we similarly remain unpersuaded by his due process claim of unfair surprise. [MIO 9, 13-15] See State v. Barraza, 1990-NMCA-026 , ¶ 13, 110 N.M. 45 , 791 P.2d 799 (“Failure to request a continuance undermines [a] defendant’s claim of unfair surprise.”).

2021See generally State v, McClaugherty, 2008-NMSC-044, ¶ 46 , 144 N.M. 483 , 188 P.3d 1234 (observing that on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, where factual issues are intertwined with the legal analysis, we review the district court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review);State v. Brule, 1999-NMSC-026, ¶ 6 , 127 N.M. 368 , 981 P.2d 782 (upholding application of the deferential substantial evidence rule to the factual findings underpinning the district court’s resolution of a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness); cf. State v. Moreland, 2008-NMSC-03

2021See generally State v, McClaugherty, 2008-NMSC-044, ¶ 46 , 144 N.M. 483 , 188 P.3d 1234 (observing that on a claim of prosecutorial misconduct, where factual issues are intertwined with the legal analysis, we review the district court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review);State v. Brule, 1999-NMSC-026, ¶ 6 , 127 N.M. 368 , 981 P.2d 782 (upholding application of the deferential substantial evidence rule to the factual findings underpinning the district court’s resolution of a claim of prosecutorial vindictiveness); cf. State v. Moreland, 2008-NMSC-03

2020Under such circumstances, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and resolve all conflicts and indulge all inferences in favor of upholding the verdict.” State v. McClendon, 2001-NMSC-023, ¶ 3 , 130 N.M. 551 , 28 P.3d 1092 .

2020Under such circumstances, “we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and resolve all conflicts and indulge all inferences in favor of upholding the verdict.” State v. McClendon, 2001-NMSC-023, ¶ 3 , 130 N.M. 551 , 28 P.3d 1092 .

2019Double Jeopardy A. Standard of Review and General Principles of Double Jeopardy {3} We review double jeopardy claims de novo, State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 747 , except “where factual issues are intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis,” in which case “we review the trial court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review[,]” State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC- 018, ¶ 3, 139 N.M. 450 , 134 P.3d 737 . {4} The double jeopardy clause “protects defendants from receiving multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-003

2019Double Jeopardy A. Standard of Review and General Principles of Double Jeopardy {3} We review double jeopardy claims de novo, State v. Swick, 2012-NMSC-018, ¶ 10 , 279 P.3d 747 , except “where factual issues are intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis,” in which case “we review the trial court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard of review[,]” State v. Rodriguez, 2006-NMSC- 018, ¶ 3, 139 N.M. 450 , 134 P.3d 737 . {4} The double jeopardy clause “protects defendants from receiving multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-003

2018See NMSA 1978, 3 § 30-1-10 (1963); State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-002, ¶ 12 , 143 N.M. 274 , 175 P.3d 4 942 . 5 {26} The right to be free from double jeopardy “protects against both successive 6 prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Contreras, 7 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 434 , 156 P.3d 725 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted).

2018See NMSA 1978, 3 § 30-1-10 (1963); State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-002, ¶ 12 , 143 N.M. 274 , 175 P.3d 4 942 . 5 {26} The right to be free from double jeopardy “protects against both successive 6 prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Contreras, 7 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 434 , 156 P.3d 725 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted).

2018See NMSA 1978, 3 § 30-1-10 (1963); State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-002, ¶ 12 , 143 N.M. 274 , 175 P.3d 4 942 . 5 {26} The right to be free from double jeopardy “protects against both successive 6 prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Contreras, 7 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 434 , 156 P.3d 725 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted).

2018See NMSA 1978, 3 § 30-1-10 (1963); State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-002, ¶ 12 , 143 N.M. 274 , 175 P.3d 4 942 . 5 {26} The right to be free from double jeopardy “protects against both successive 6 prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Contreras, 7 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 434 , 156 P.3d 725 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted).

2018See NMSA 1978, 3 § 30-1-10 (1963); State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-002, ¶ 12 , 143 N.M. 274 , 175 P.3d 4 942 . 5 {26} The right to be free from double jeopardy “protects against both successive 6 prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Contreras, 7 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 434 , 156 P.3d 725 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted).

2018See NMSA 1978, 3 § 30-1-10 (1963); State v. Lopez, 2008-NMCA-002, ¶ 12 , 143 N.M. 274 , 175 P.3d 4 942 . 5 {26} The right to be free from double jeopardy “protects against both successive 6 prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. Contreras, 7 2007-NMCA-045, ¶ 19 , 141 N.M. 434 , 156 P.3d 725 (internal quotation marks and 8 citation omitted).

2012Unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 In this Court’s calendar notice, we noted that we generally apply a de novo 8 standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double 9 jeopardy violation. [CN 3 (citing State v. Andazola, 2003-NMCA-146, ¶ 14 , 134 10 N.M. 710 , 82 P.3d 77 )] We noted, however, that where factual issues are intertwined 11 with the double jeopardy analysis, the trial court’s fact determinations are subject to 12 a deferential substantial evidence standard of review. [Id. (citing State v. Rodriguez, 13 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 450 , 134 P.3d 737 )] We w

2012Unpersuaded, we affirm. 7 In this Court’s calendar notice, we noted that we generally apply a de novo 8 standard of review to the constitutional question of whether there has been a double 9 jeopardy violation. [CN 3 (citing State v. Andazola, 2003-NMCA-146, ¶ 14 , 134 10 N.M. 710 , 82 P.3d 77 )] We noted, however, that where factual issues are intertwined 11 with the double jeopardy analysis, the trial court’s fact determinations are subject to 12 a deferential substantial evidence standard of review. [Id. (citing State v. Rodriguez, 13 2006-NMSC-018, ¶ 3 , 139 N.M. 450 , 134 P.3d 737 )] We w

2012Thus, we do not 4 reweigh the evidence or “substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, and all 5 reasonable inferences supporting the fact findings will be accepted even if some 6 evidence may have supported a contrary finding.” Id. (citation omitted). 7 “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both 8 successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. 9 Mora, 2003-NMCA-072, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 746 , 69 P.3d 256 (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted).

2012Thus, we do not 4 reweigh the evidence or “substitute our judgment for that of the trial court, and all 5 reasonable inferences supporting the fact findings will be accepted even if some 6 evidence may have supported a contrary finding.” Id. (citation omitted). 7 “The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy protects against both 8 successive prosecutions and multiple punishments for the same offense.” State v. 9 Mora, 2003-NMCA-072, ¶ 17 , 133 N.M. 746 , 69 P.3d 256 (internal quotation marks 10 and citation omitted).

2010In the case of double jeopardy based on 19 prosecutorial misconduct, the factual issues surrounding that misconduct are 20 necessarily intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis; therefore, “we review the 3 1 district court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard 2 of review.” State v. McClaugherty, 2008-NMSC-044, ¶ 46 , 144 N.M. 483 , 188 P.3d 3 1234 . 4 “The New Mexico Constitution, like its federal counterpart, protects any person 5 from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC- 6 067, ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 (i

2010In the case of double jeopardy based on 19 prosecutorial misconduct, the factual issues surrounding that misconduct are 20 necessarily intertwined with the double jeopardy analysis; therefore, “we review the 3 1 district court’s fact determinations under a deferential substantial evidence standard 2 of review.” State v. McClaugherty, 2008-NMSC-044, ¶ 46 , 144 N.M. 483 , 188 P.3d 3 1234 . 4 “The New Mexico Constitution, like its federal counterpart, protects any person 5 from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense.” State v. Breit, 1996-NMSC- 6 067, ¶ 8, 122 N.M. 655 , 930 P.2d 792 (i

2010“We review the judge’s findings of historical fact using the deferential substantial evidence standard, while we review the application of the law to those facts de novo.” Id.