discretionary or permissive rule in New Mexico

2023Rule 5-203 is “mandatory; it is not a discretionary or permissive rule; it demands that the [s]tate join certain charges.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) “In terms of barring successive prosecutions, however, compulsory joinder and double jeopardy are closely related— two sides of the same coin.” Id. ¶ 26. {12} “The purpose of [our] compulsory joinder statute, viewed as a whole, is twofold: (1) to protect a defendant from the governmental harassment of being subjected to successive trials for offenses stemming from the same criminal episode; and (2) to ensure finality with

2023Rule 18 5-203 is “mandatory; it is not a discretionary or permissive rule; it demands that the 19 [s]tate join certain charges.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) “In 20 terms of barring successive prosecutions, however, compulsory joinder and double 21 jeopardy are closely related—two sides of the same coin.” Id. ¶ 26. 5 1 {12} “The purpose of [our] compulsory joinder statute, viewed as a whole, is 2 twofold: (1) to protect a defendant from the governmental harassment of being 3 subjected to successive trials for offenses stemming from the same criminal episode; 4 and (2) to

2023“The rule is mandatory; it is not a discretionary or permissive rule; it demands that the [s]tate join certain charges.” State v. Gonzales, 2013-NMSC-016, ¶ 25 , 301 P.3d 380 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] failure to join offenses under Rule 5- 203(A) bars piecemeal prosecution in a subsequent trial.” Gonzales, 2013-NMSC-016, ¶ 31 . “[B]y its very nature, Rule 5-203(C) does not come into play unless and until there is a proper joinder pursuant to Rule 5-203(A).” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 16 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 .

2023“The rule is mandatory; it is not a discretionary or permissive rule; it demands that the [s]tate join certain charges.” State v. Gonzales, 2013-NMSC-016, ¶ 25 , 301 P.3d 380 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[A] failure to join offenses under Rule 5- 203(A) bars piecemeal prosecution in a subsequent trial.” Gonzales, 2013-NMSC-016, ¶ 31 . “[B]y its very nature, Rule 5-203(C) does not come into play unless and until there is a proper joinder pursuant to Rule 5-203(A).” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007, ¶ 16 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 .

2013(Emphasis added.) The rule is mandatory; it “is not a discretionary or permissive rule; it demands that the State join certain charges.” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007,¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; accord State v. Paiz, 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 412 , 249 P.3d 1235 .

2013(Emphasis added.) The rule is mandatory; it “is not a discretionary or permissive rule; it demands that the State join certain charges.” State v. Gallegos, 2007-NMSC-007,¶ 10 , 141 N.M. 185 , 152 P.3d 828 ; accord State v. Paiz, 2011-NMSC-008, ¶ 10 , 149 N.M. 412 , 249 P.3d 1235 .

2011Rule 5-203(A) requires multiple offenses be joined whenever they “are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan” or “are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts either connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.” {13} In State v. Gammill, a Court of Appeals opinion, Judge (later Justice) Minzner analyzed improper joinder as a defect in an indictment that must be preserved before a trial on the merits begins. 102 N.M. 652, 654 , 699 P.2d 125, 127 (Ct.App.1985).

2011Rule 5-203(A) requires multiple offenses be joined whenever they “are of the same or similar character, even if not part of a single scheme or plan” or “are based on the same conduct or on a series of acts either connected together or constituting parts of a single scheme or plan.” {13} In State v. Gammill, a Court of Appeals opinion, Judge (later Justice) Minzner analyzed improper joinder as a defect in an indictment that must be preserved before a trial on the merits begins. 102 N.M. 652, 654 , 699 P.2d 125, 127 (Ct.App.1985).

2007At common law, whether charges should be joined in the same indictment “was a matter of prudence and discretion which ... rest[ed] with the judges to exercise.” State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 240-41 , 257 P.2d 915, 924 (1953) (quoted authority omitted).

2007At common law, whether charges should be joined in the same indictment “was a matter of prudence and discretion which ... rest[ed] with the judges to exercise.” State v. Compton, 57 N.M. 227, 240-41 , 257 P.2d 915, 924 (1953) (quoted authority omitted).