State v. Surratt

Summary

The New Mexico Supreme Court considered whether a properly appointed special prosecutor could appoint another district attorney as a replacement special prosecutor when unable to proceed because of an ethical conflict or other good cause. The court held that under NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-23.1, the original special prosecutor possessed the authority and duties of the appointing district attorney, including the authority to make a further appointment. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Danny Surratt’s conviction.

Holdings

1. Section 36-1-23.1 applies to the appointment of any practicing member of the New Mexico bar, including another elected district attorney, when the original district attorney cannot prosecute a case for ethical reasons or other good cause.
2. A properly appointed special prosecutor steps into the shoes of the appointing district attorney and possesses all of that district attorney's powers and duties in the specific case, including the authority to appoint another special prosecutor when ethical reasons or other good cause arise.
3. The district court retained subject-matter jurisdiction over the criminal proceedings because Chandler had authority to prosecute, and the substitution of prosecutors did not divest the court of jurisdiction.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NMSA 1978, Section 36-1-23.1 authorizes a district attorney serving as a special prosecutor to appoint another special prosecutor when an ethical conflict or other good cause prevents continued participation.
2. Whether the second special prosecutor had authority to prosecute Surratt's case.
3. Whether the district court lost subject-matter jurisdiction because of the alleged defect in the prosecutor's appointment.

Disposition

reversed