{ "id": 1568828, "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vickie Gloria QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Quintana", "decision_date": "1979-09-25", "docket_number": "No. 4126", "first_page": "644", "last_page": "646", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "93 N.M. 644" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "603 P.2d 1101" } ], "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": "92 N.M. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1557150 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/92/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N.M. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568768 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 N.M. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 2839532 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/88/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N.M. 232", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1568734 ], "weight": 5, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/93/0232-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 309, "char_count": 5238, "ocr_confidence": 0.778, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08, "percentile": 0.31780655937855834 }, "sha256": "859139261a6cbf8c6d8c1a7184fc9988ad66ffa5d41d0dd8b4018b2fdbd4173f", "simhash": "1:9bed5c095cb4f95e", "word_count": 840 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:36.909287+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "LOPEZ and WALTERS, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vickie Gloria QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThe appeal involves a double jeopardy claim based on the prosecutor\u2019s alleged bad faith conduct.\nDefendant was being tried on a charge of forgery of a check. During his opening statement, the prosecutor stated that a detective would testify that he presented a photo array to the victim, that the array was of persons that \u201cmay or have been involved in previous crimes\u201d and that the victim had selected defendant\u2019s picture from the array. The victim was the first witness. After an in-court identification of defendant as the one who passed the check, the victim was asked to identify a set of pictures. The victim identified the pictures as the array which she had viewed, and testified that she had selected defendant\u2019s picture from the array. When the prosecutor moved the admission of defendant\u2019s picture (from the array), defendant objected and moved for a mistrial. The mistrial motion was granted; there is no issue as to the propriety of this ruling. State v. Gutierrez, 93 N.M. 232, 599 P.2d 385 (Ct.App.1979).\nThereafter, defendant moved to dismiss the forgery charge. The motion asserted, and it is not disputed on appeal, that the photo of defendant was a \u201cmug shot\u201d which showed a police number and an arrest date unrelated to the forgery charge. The motion alleged that use of defendant\u2019s photo and the reference to the photo array in the opening statements \u201cwere either intentional attempts to abort this trial or grossly negligent actions amounting to prosecutorial misconduct and overreaching.\u201d On this basis defendant contended that to retry the defendant would violate double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion; we granted an interlocutory appeal.\nDefendant is the one who sought and obtained the mistrial. Ordinarily a mistrial granted on defendant\u2019s motion removes any double jeopardy barrier to reprosecution. This, however, is not the rule when the mistrial results from prosecutorial overreaching. State v. Mazurek, 88 N.M. 56, 537 P.2d 51 (Ct.App.1975). The \u201coverreaching\u201d which bars retrial requires bad faith conduct which threatens the defendant with successive prosecutions or which seeks for the prosecutor a more favorable opportunity to convict. State v. Dunn, 93 N.M. 239, 599 P.2d 392 (Ct.App.1979).\nIt cannot be seriously contended that the prosecutor\u2019s references to the photo array in his opening statement and his attempt to introduce defendant\u2019s mug shot into evidence were not efforts to afford the prosecutor a more favorable opportunity to convict the defendant. See State v. Gutierrez, supra. The question is whether the prosecutor\u2019s efforts can be characterized as having been undertaken in bad faith.\nThe arguments to the trial court while the mistrial motion was being considered show that counsel differed as to the holding in State v. Gutierrez, supra. The prosecutor\u2019s view was that Gutierrez did no more than prohibit references to \u201cmug shots\u201d and \u201cmug books.\u201d Such a limited view of Gutierrez is amazing. The holding in Gutierrez reads:\nWe will no longer tolerate prosecutorial references to \u201cmugshots\u201d or \u201cmug books,\u201d or the introduction of \u201cmug shots\u201d in a criminal case under the circumstances brought to our attention here.\nAlthough the prosecutor\u2019s selective view as to the holding in Gutierrez is dubious, the circumstances of Gutierrez and this case are sufficiently different; that even with the prosecutor\u2019s erroneous view of the Gutierrez decision, we cannot hold the prosecutor proceeded in bad faith.\nDefendant\u2019s brief speculates as to the use the prosecutor would have made of defendant\u2019s picture if the trial had proceeded. Such speculative use does not show bad faith because it did not occur; a mistrial was declared.\nAt the time the trial court declared the mistrial, there had been no reference to \u201cmug shot\u201d; the prosecutor\u2019s references had been to a \u201cphoto array.\u201d Defendant\u2019s picture was never admitted into evidence; none of the pictures in the array had been shown to the jury. Testimony by the victim that she had selected the picture of the defendant from a photo array was relevant to corroborate her in-court identification. The trial stopped at that point. There had not been repeated testimony concerning, or repeated references to, defendant\u2019s picture; the only testimony concerning the picture had come from the victim, and the victim\u2019s testimony had not been repetitious. The limited use of the defendant\u2019s mug shot picture in this case was sufficiently different from the use in State v. Gutierrez, supra, that we cannot hold, as a matter of law, either that the prosecutor proceeded in bad faith or that the trial court\u2019s refusal to dismiss, on a theory of prosecutor overreaching, was an abuse of discretion. Compare the facts in State v. Callaway, 92 N.M. 80, 582 P.2d 1293 (1978).\nThe order denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nLOPEZ and WALTERS, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roderick A. Dorr, Terrazas & Dorr, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.", "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Lawrence A. Barela, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "603 P.2d 1101\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vickie Gloria QUINTANA, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 4126.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 25, 1979.\nRoderick A. Dorr, Terrazas & Dorr, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Lawrence A. Barela, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee." }, "file_name": "0644-01", "first_page_order": 690, "last_page_order": 692 }