 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Fernandez4/14/1994
BLACK, Judge.
On December 4, 1991 David Fernandez (Defendant) was arrested by Taos County Police Officer David Romo and charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI), careless driving, and resisting arrest. On January 6, 1992, in his capacity as Chairman of the Taos County Commission, Defendant wrote a letter to Romo stating that he had received information indicating Romo and his wife were violating the guidelines of a federal food commodities program. Based on this letter, the New Mexico Attorney General's Office decided to add a witness intimidation count to the three pending misdemeanor charges. In addition, Defendant was facing embezzlement charges in an unrelated matter.
Following a four-day jury trial, Defendant was convicted on the two misdemeanor offenses of careless driving and resisting arrest, and on one felony count of intimidating
a witness. Defendant was acquitted on the DWI charge.
Defendant raises thirteen points on appeal, but, in violation of SCRA 1986, 12-213(A)(1)(a) (Repl. 1992) fails to list the legal issues in an index. Nonetheless, this Court has reviewed each of the arguments raised in Defendant's brief in chief and we address them here, combining some of Defendant's issues for purposes of our Discussion. We find Defendant's arguments without merit, and we affirm.
I. JUDICIAL BIAS AND MISCONDUCT
Defendant's principal contentions on appeal revolve around the alleged judicial bias and misconduct of Judge Benjamin S. Eastburn, who presided over both Defendant's DWI trial and Defendant's embezzlement trial. In support of his allegations, Defendant cites more than fifteen instances which he claims demonstrate Judge Eastburn's bias against him. However, Defendant's claims of judicial bias or misconduct are not supported by the record.
Our Supreme Court has recognized the scope of the challenge a trial Judge faces in remaining impartial:
A trial Judge must exercise great care to assure a criminal defendant a fair and impartial trial. This required fairness and impartiality may often run counter to natural human reaction, particularly where the case involves a heinous crime, or the demeanor of an attorney has been particularly disrespectful or antagonistic. Nonetheless, fairness and impartiality are required of a Judge and necessitate that the Judge "be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom he deals in his official capacity."
(citations omitted).
As a general rule, "'a fair and impartial tribunal requires that the trier of fact be disinterested and free from any form of bias or preDisposition regarding the outcome of the case.'" ) (quoting Reid v. New Mexico Bd. of Examiners in ), cert. denied, 115 N.M. 79, 847 P.2d 313 (1993). On the other hand it is also well settled that a party "cannot establish bias merely by pointing to the Judge's failure to accept his argument." ), cert. denied, 114 N.M. 501, 841 P.2d 549 (1992). Rather, the test for resolving a claim that a Judge is biased in favor of the State "is whether the conduct of the Judge deprived the defendant of a fair trial." ), cert. denied, 103 N.M. 287, 705 P.2d 1138 (1985).
We note at the outset that, following the voluntary recusal of the two local district Judges, Defendant stipulated to Judge Eastburn. While not dispositive on the issue of judicial bias, it may also be relevant that Defendant was acquitted of DWI, the charge he seemed most concerned about in his dialogue with Officer Romo. At a minimum, Defendant's ac
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|