State v. Castrillo

44 Citing cases

  1. State v. Wardlow

    95 N.M. 585 (N.M. 1981)   Cited 23 times
    Affirming rule of Castrillo, which "requires that where a jury is deadlocked on a charge involving [lesser] included offenses, the trial court must determine whether the jury" has unanimously reached verdict on any of greater offenses and, if so, court must accept that partial verdict

    A jury may be polled when the jury has been instructed on lesser-included offenses and cannot unanimously agree on any of the offenses submitted. Rule 44(d); O'Kelly v. State, 94 N.M. 74, 607 P.2d 612 (1980); State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146 (1977). The procedure followed by the trial court accords with that mandated by our opinion in Castrillo, supra.

  2. State v. Garcia

    137 N.M. 315 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 17 times
    Upholding the admission of photographs of a victim after death to assist in showing the full nature of the injuries, to explain the forensic pathologist's opinions, and to illustrate the pathologist's testimony

    See State v. Moore, 2004-NMCA-035, ¶ 12, 135 N.M. 210, 86 P.3d 635; State v. Galaz, 2003-NMCA-076, ¶ 4, 133 N.M. 794, 70 P.3d 784. {11} For his implied acquittal and double jeopardy arguments, Munoz relies on State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146 (1977), State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 (1981), and Rule 5-611(D) NMRA. We discuss Castrillo and Wardlow at the outset.

  3. State v. Fielder

    138 N.M. 244 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that a lone instance of prosecutorial misconduct did not rise to the level of misconduct articulated in Brett

    State v. Segura, 2002-NMCA-044, ¶ 7, 132 N.M. 114, 45 P.3d 54. {11} Defendant relies on State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146 (1977), overruled on other grounds by State v. Wardlow, 95 N.M. 585, 588, 624 P.2d 527, 530 (1981), and Rule 5-611(D) NMRA to support his argument that his conviction of CSP III must be set aside because the first trial ended in an implied acquittal of CSP II and his right to be free from double jeopardy bars successive prosecutions of all degrees of the offense following an acquittal of any degree. Relying on the same authority and our recent decision in State v. Garcia, 2005-NMCA-042, 137 N.M. 315, 110 P.3d 531, we rule that Defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated when he was tried for CSP II at a second trial.

  4. State v. Lewis

    433 P.3d 276 (N.M. 2018)   Cited 9 times
    Explaining that the Court addressed sua sponte the order in which the jury returns its verdicts because the pertinent uniform jury instructions were ambiguous and inconsistent

    Phillips , 2017-NMSC-019, ¶ 6, 396 P.3d 153. We acknowledge, as the Court of Appeals has, that this polling requirement was drafted based significantly on our holding in State v. Castrillo , 1977-NMSC-059, ¶¶ 5, 14, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146.See State v. Garcia , 2005-NMCA-042, ¶ 26, 137 N.M. 315, 110 P.3d 531 ("It is apparent that Rule 5-611(D) was likely drafted, for the most part, based on the committee’s reading of Castrillo .").

  5. State v. Paul

    495 P.3d 610 (N.M. Ct. App. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    {1} Defendant Darryl Paul appeals the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds the charged offense of homicide by vehicle following a jury trial that produced no verdict. Defendant contends that, under State v. Castrillo , 1977-NMSC-059, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, he may not be retried for homicide by vehicle because the district court declared a mistrial based on manifest necessity due to jury deadlock without creating a "clear record[,]" State v. Phillips , 2017-NMSC-019, ¶ 16, 396 P.3d 153, as to whether the jury was deadlocked on the greater offense of homicide by vehicle, NMSA 1978, § 66-8-101 (2004), or on the lesser included offense of driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102 (2010). Although we agree that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial on homicide by vehicle, we conclude that Castrillo does not apply in this case because Defendant consented to the district court's mistrial declaration, and we therefore affirm.

  6. Speaks v. U.S.

    617 A.2d 942 (D.C. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that imposing a sua sponte obligation on a trial judge to inquire regarding partial verdicts where not requested by defense counsel or indicated by the jury "threatens to disrupt the fine line which a trial judge must tread with respect to partial verdicts"

    See United States v. MacQueen, supra, 596 F.2d at 83 (holding that "statements [of jurors offered to impeach an announced deadlock] cannot be considered by the court"). See also Fitzgerald v. Lile, supra, 732 F. Supp. at 789; McKay v. Raines, supra, 405 F. Supp. at 365; Whiteaker v. State, supra, 808 P.2d at 273 n. 4; State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 610, 566 P.2d 1146, 1148 (1977). Therefore, the factual posture in which this issue must be decided is dictated by the events prior to discharge, specifically, the jury's announcement on three separate occasions that it was unable to reach an agreement.

  7. State v. Lewis

    2017 NMCA 56 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017)   Cited 5 times

    See State v. Collier , 2013-NMSC-015, ¶¶ 21-22, 301 P.3d 370.{4} Defendant relies primarily on Rule 5-611(D) NMRA ; State v. Castrillo , 1977-NMSC-059, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146, overruled on other grounds by State v. Wardlow , 1981-NMSC-029, 95 N.M. 585, 624 P.2d 527 ; and State v. Garcia , 2005-NMCA-042, 137 N.M. 315, 110 P.3d 531, to argue that he received an implied acquittal on CSCM and retrial on that charge would violate his right to be free from double jeopardy. Relying on the same authority and also on Fielder , 2005-NMCA-108, 118 P.3d 752, we conclude that Defendant's retrial for CSCM does not violate double jeopardy.

  8. State v. Chamberlain

    112 N.M. 723 (N.M. 1991)   Cited 100 times
    Holding defendant is entitled to jury instruction where the evidence supports defendant's theory of the case

    See State v. McCarter, 93 N.M. 708, 710, 604 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1980). In State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 566 P.2d 1146 (1977), we considered the double jeopardy implications of the failure to return a verdict. We noted that "the approach taken by a jury in reaching a decision should not be called into question.

  9. State v. Booker

    306 N.C. 302 (N.C. 1982)   Cited 58 times
    In Booker, the jury in the defendant's first trial had been unable to reach a verdict, but had indicated in a note that it was deadlocked on second degree murder.

    The record merely reflects that in the first trial a mistrial was declared because the jury was unable to reach a verdict and does not disclose that defendant opposed the declaration of a mistrial. Defendant urges us to adopt the rule enunciated by the New Mexico court in State v. Castrillo, 90 N.M. 608, 611, 566 P.2d 1146, 1149 (1977), as follows: Henceforth, when a jury announces its inability to reach verdict in cases involving included offenses, the trial court will be required to submit verdict forms to the jury to determine if it has unanimously voted for acquittal on any of the included offenses.

  10. Stone v. Superior Court

    31 Cal.3d 503 (Cal. 1982)   Cited 198 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "trial court is constitutionally obligated to afford the jury an opportunity to render a partial verdict of acquittal on a greater offense when the jury is deadlocked only on an uncharged lesser included offense" before granting a mistrial

    [Citation.] The same result should also obtain if a jury has voted unanimously for acquittal on any of several included offenses." ( State v. Castrillo (1977) 90 N.M. 608 [ 566 P.2d 1146, 1149].) In New York, partial verdicts are expressly allowed by statute.