{
  "id": 1571154,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John DOE, a child, Respondent-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Doe",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 3196",
  "first_page": "158",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "91 N.M. 158"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "571 P.2d 425"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "43 L.Ed. 265",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 U.S. 377",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11643788
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/420/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "420 U.S. 332",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11643561
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/420/0332-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 U.S. 519",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        541745
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/421/0519-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 2890,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.854,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.747531233646565e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4948388882903984
    },
    "sha256": "c928f8a5d54cc47abd483b2591eecb8a9fceb21d4e719525a5f8590d5ee1167f",
    "simhash": "1:852a3774da473378",
    "word_count": 465
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:42.064818+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John DOE, a child, Respondent-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThe Children\u2019s Court petition alleged the child had committed embezzlement, was delinquent and in need of care or rehabilitation. The Children\u2019s Court dismissed the petition with prejudice. The State is attempting to appeal.\nWe assigned this case to the limited calendar. The calendar assignment invited the parties \u201cto brief the question as to whether the State may appeal this case.\u201d\nThe child responded by moving to dismiss because of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The child relies on Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519, 95 S.Ct. 1779, 44 L.Ed.2d 346 (1975). Breed held that a juvenile was put in jeopardy at an adjudicatory hearing; that is, \u201cat a proceeding whose object is to determine whether he has committed acts that violate a criminal law\u201d. Jeopardy attached when the Children\u2019s Court, as the trier of facts, began to hear evidence. Breed, supra.\nThe Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second trial for the same offense after acquittal. United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332, 95 S.Ct. 1013, 43 L.Ed.2d 232 (1975).\nThe State\u2019s response to the motion to dismiss is that appellate counsel has insufficient facts to determine whether the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to this case; the State asks that a ruling on the motion be delayed until the transcript is filed in this Court.\nThe docketing statement asserts that the dismissal came after an evidentiary hearing at which the child\u2019s confession was excluded. After the confession was excluded, the State tendered further evidence. After this tender, the petition was dismissed. The State does not contest the accuracy of these representations in the docketing statement. The record shows this case was set for trial on the merits. The Children\u2019s Court order states: \u201cThe evidence adduced by the State was legally inadmissable to establish that the respondent committed a delinquent act and/or that the respondent is in need of supervision or rehabilitation.\u201d\nThe only showing, undisputed, is that the petition was dismissed after a trial on the merits at which the State\u2019s evidence was held to be insufficient. This case does not involve dismissal on the basis of a pretrial motion. See Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 95 S.Ct. 1055, 43 L.Ed. 265 (1975). The dismissal after hearing evidence on the merits of the charge, and the ruling that the State\u2019s evidence was insufficient, was an acquittal.\nFurther proceedings against the child by the State are barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.\nThe appeal is dismissed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHERNANDEZ and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Roderick A. Dorr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Lowell Stout, Hobbs, for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "571 P.2d 425\nSTATE of New Mexico, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John DOE, a child, Respondent-Appellee.\nNo. 3196.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nOct. 25, 1977.\nToney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Roderick A. Dorr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for petitioner-appellant.\nLowell Stout, Hobbs, for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0158-01",
  "first_page_order": 194,
  "last_page_order": 195
}