NMSC: District Court May Vacate Verdict Based on Insufficiency of the Evidence

In State v. Martinez, the New Mexico Supreme Court held that a district court has the power to vacate a conviction if it concludes that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. The Court also concluded that, in such a case, an appeal by the State would not violate the defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy.

The relevant facts are simple. Two days after the defendant was convicted by a jury, the district court determined that the evidence was insufficient and vacated the conviction. The State appealed and the court of appeals reversed, concluding that the district court lacked the power to review the sufficiency of the evidence after it had accepted the verdict. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the district court had the power to review the sufficiency of the evidence after a verdict was returned.

A Guilty Verdict Does Not Divest the District Court of Its Power to Review the Sufficiency of the Evidence

The first and most obvious question created by this appeal was whether the court of appeals was correct that the district court lacked the power to review the sufficiency of the evidence once the jury had rendered its verdict. This is a purely legal question that balances the inherent authority of the court to ensure justice is done against the fact-finding powers reserved exclusively to the jury.

The Court began with an analysis of State v. Torrez, the case relied upon by the court of appeals. The Torrez court had said that “[a] district court does not have the authority to override a jury’s verdict and enter a verdict different than that handed down by the jury.” Viewed out of context, this quote seemed to require the result that the court of appeals reached–that the district court lacked power to vacate a guilty verdict.

In this case, however, the context was important. In Torrez, the defendant had been charged with two different types of first degree murder. The jury returned a guilty verdict but did not specify whether its verdict was based on felony murder, depraved mind murder, or both. The district court then entered a verdict finding the defendant guilty of felony murder but not depraved mind murder. This was error because the jury had not acquitted the defendant of depraved mind murder. And Torrez‘s language about the court’s lack of power to override a jury’s verdict referred to that error, not to a more general inability ever to vacate a verdict. The court of appeals, in other words, read to much into Torrez.

Torrez relied on State v. Davis, which the State in this case also argued supported affirmance. But Davis also involved a significantly different legal question. At the close of the State’s case, the defendant can ask for a “directed verdict”–basically, a ruling that the State has not proved its case. If that motion is granted, the Defendant does not need to decide whether to rest its case or put on a defense. Davis dealt with the question of whether the court must immediately rule on that motion, or whether it could wait until after a conviction and then grant the motion, vacating the verdict. The Davis court concluded that waiting until after a verdict violated due process.

Here, the State argued that Davis meant that the district court could not vacate the verdict once it had been rendered. But the distinction drawn in Davis was much finer, and dealt with the difference between weighing the evidence (which only the jury may do) and testing whether the evidence was sufficient to convict (a legal question the court is required to answer, or which the appellate courts may answer after conviction).

The court must assess the sufficiency of the evidence at the close of the State’s case and again before the case is submitted to the jury. In doing so, it does not weigh the evidence, but simply asks whether, when viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is enough to prove each element of the charged offenses. It can do so without invading the province of the jury. And, as the Court held in this case, it can make this inquiry even after a conviction.

The State May Appeal the District Court’s Ruling Without Violating the Defendant’s Double Jeopardy Rights

Having concluded that the district court had the power to examine the sufficiency of the evidence after the guilty verdict was returned, the Court next discussed whether doing so created a risk of violating the defendant’s double jeopardy rights.

The State had relied on State v. Willyard to argue that, in order to avoid Double Jeopardy problems, the district court was required to “mechanically enter” the jury’s verdict. Once again the Court disagreed. In Willyard, the district court concluded that there was insufficient evidence after the jury had convicted. Rather than vacate the conviction, however, the court ordered a new trial. But this procedure, which subjected the defendant to a second trial, violated the Defendant’s Double Jeopardy rights. Here, on the other hand, the district court did not order a retrial. Instead, it vacated the conviction. To the extent that the conviction might be reinstated on appeal, the Court noted U.S. Supreme Court precedent that Double Jeopardy “is not offended when reversal on appeal would merely reinstate the jury’s verdict.”

Having decided the issues, the Court observed that both sides had made broad statements about how this issue works in other jurisdictions. The Court declined the invitation to conduct a detailed study of the rules in other states. It did, however, refer the matter to its Rules of Criminal Procedure of State Courts Committee to consider whether any changes would be helpful.

Looking for a New Mexico appellate attorney? Contact us or give me a call at (505) 273-9379.