What Is a Nolle Prosequi in New Mexico Criminal Cases?
In New Mexico, a nolle prosequi is a formal act by the prosecutor dismissing a pending criminal case or charge, ordinarily without prejudice, meaning the State can refile if not otherwise barred. In State v. Gardea, 128 N.M. 64 (Ct. App. 1999), the Court of Appeals described nolle prosequi as a common‑law mechanism by which the government indicates it no longer wishes to prosecute, functioning as an abandonment of the suit.
New Mexico appellate courts also characterize a nolle prosequi as a species of dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor, usually without prejudice, that terminates the current proceeding. In State v. Ware, 115 N.M. 339 (Ct. App. 1993), the court explained that a nolle prosequi is a dismissal of criminal charges filed by the prosecutor and that, in substance, it ends the case then pending, subject to refiling if lawful.
Because a criminal prosecution in district court can only begin with a complaint, information, or indictment, a nolle prosequi that terminates an indictment ordinarily voids that indictment and any further prosecution must proceed on newly filed charges. In Ware, the Court of Appeals held that a second indictment following a nolle prosequi was not a “reinstatement” or continuation of the first, but a new case, because the dismissal nullified the first indictment and the trial court’s jurisdiction in that cause.
How New Mexico Rules Implement Nolle Prosequi / Voluntary Dismissal
New Mexico’s modern criminal rules implement nolle prosequi practice through “voluntary dismissal” provisions in the courts of limited jurisdiction and corresponding case law in district court.
Magistrate, Metropolitan, and Municipal Courts
In magistrate court, Rule 6‑506.1 NMRA authorizes the prosecution to dismiss a citation or criminal complaint by filing a “notice of dismissal,” which is by default without prejudice unless otherwise stated. The rule requires the dismissal be filed either before trial begins or after acceptance of a guilty or no‑contest plea but before sentencing.
When the State later refiles the same charges in magistrate court, the new complaint must be labeled “Refiled Complaint” and must identify the original court, file number, judge, and the reason for dismissal, and the case is generally treated as a continuation of the original for six‑month‑rule purposes.
Metropolitan and municipal courts use nearly identical mechanisms. Rule 7‑506.1 NMRA and Rule 8‑506.1 NMRA allow the prosecution to dismiss by notice (again, ordinarily without prejudice), require “Refiled Complaint” labeling, and treat refiled charges as a continuation for the metropolitan and municipal six‑month rules unless the court orders otherwise.
In Gardea, the Court of Appeals held that in metropolitan court a prosecutor’s nolle prosequi functions as a dismissal of charges, but Rule 7‑506(A) requires the nolle prosequi or dismissal to be endorsed by the judge, both to effectuate the dismissal and to allow some judicial oversight, particularly regarding time‑to‑trial protections. The court emphasized that while the prosecutor has wide discretion to dismiss charges, that discretion is tempered by the judiciary’s responsibility to prevent misuse of dismissal to circumvent procedural rules such as the six‑month rule.
District Court and Felony Prosecutions
In district court, there is no separate “nolle prosequi rule,” but the concept remains recognized in case law as a prosecutorial dismissal of charges, generally without prejudice, subject to constitutional and rule‑based limits. In Ware, the court held that once a nolle prosequi is filed in district court, the first indictment is treated as void and cannot be “reinstated”; any further prosecution must rest on a new charging document, and the defendant’s procedural rights attach anew in that new case.
District courts also recognize that prosecutors have broad discretion to dismiss and reinstitute prosecutions, even in a different court that has concurrent jurisdiction, as long as there are “good and sufficient reasons” and the process is not used to evade time‑to‑trial rules. In State v. Neal, 143 N.M. 341 (Ct. App. 2008), involving a DWI originally filed in magistrate court and later nolle‑prossed and refiled in district court, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that a prosecution may be terminated and subsequently reinstituted for valid reasons, but that courts will scrutinize dismissals that appear aimed at defeating the six‑month rule.
Nolle Prosequi and the Six‑Month Rule / Time‑to‑Trial Protections
Time‑to‑trial is governed primarily by Rule 5‑604 NMRA in district court and by Rule 6‑506 NMRA in magistrate court. New Mexico appellate courts have consistently held that a nolle prosequi cannot be used in bad faith to “reset” these deadlines where the purpose is to delay trial or circumvent the rules.
District Court (Rule 5‑604 NMRA)
Rule 5‑604 sets six‑month time limits for commencement of trial in district court, including special provisions for cases originating in magistrate, metropolitan, or municipal courts that are later dismissed and refiled in district court. The rule’s annotations summarize a long line of cases in which courts examined whether dismissals and refilings were used to evade the six‑month rule, and in those cases courts sometimes treated the later case as a continuation of the original for timing purposes.
In Heinsen v. State, 138 N.M. 441 (2005), the New Mexico Supreme Court held that the State may not take a direct appeal from a magistrate‑court suppression order, but can obtain review by dismissing in magistrate court via nolle prosequi and refiling in district court, where the State can then pursue an appeal from a district‑court suppression ruling. The Court recognized that this procedure implicates the six‑month rule but held that, when the nolle prosequi follows a magistrate‑court suppression order and the State acts to preserve its right to challenge suppression rather than to delay, the filing of a nolle prosequi should end the previous proceeding and start a new six‑month period upon arraignment in district court.
The Court in Heinsen stressed that trial courts retain authority to inquire into the reasons for a nolle prosequi and to intervene if dismissal is being used to circumvent time‑to‑trial protections or other procedural safeguards. The Court noted that ordinarily a nolle prosequi ends the prior proceeding and allows a new six‑month period, provided there was a reasonable basis for the dismissal and the State is not acting for purposes of delay.
In Neal, the State filed a nolle prosequi in magistrate court less than two months after the six‑month clock started and refiled in district court after the defendant had filed, but before the magistrate court ruled on, a motion to suppress. The Court of Appeals held that the State’s reliance on the Heinsen procedure was a valid, legal justification for dismissal, and that the nolle prosequi was not used to punish the defendant for filing a suppression motion or to evade the six‑month rule, so a new six‑month period ran from arraignment in district court.
At the same time, the Neal court reaffirmed earlier authority (including State v. Bolton and State ex rel. Delgado v. Stanley, as discussed in Neal and Heinsen) holding that when a defendant shows the State dismissed and refiled close to the expiration of the six‑month period, the burden shifts to the State to demonstrate good faith and that it did not act to circumvent the rule.
Magistrate and Metropolitan Courts (Rule 6‑506 and Rule 7‑506.1)
Rule 6‑506 NMRA sets the magistrate‑court six‑month rule and its committee commentary explains that, when the State in good faith files a nolle prosequi under Rule 6‑506.1 and later refiles the same charge, the trial on the refiled charges must still be commenced within the unexpired time remaining under Rule 6‑506, unless the magistrate court, under Rule 6‑506.1(D), decides the refiled complaint should not be treated as a continuation of the same case.
The commentary recognizes that a violation of the six‑month rule can result in dismissal with prejudice under Rule 6‑506(E), but that the rule is not jurisdictional and requires the defendant to raise the issue. It also notes that a good‑faith nolle prosequi and refiling does not, by itself, cure a prior delay if the court finds the State used the dismissal to circumvent the rule.
Metropolitan court Rule 7‑506.1 contains the same continuation‑of‑case framework when charges are dismissed without prejudice and later refiled in metropolitan court, requiring trial on the refiled charges within the unexpired metropolitan six‑month period unless the court determines otherwise.
In Gardea, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an unendorsed nolle prosequi in metropolitan court could be treated as ineffective, allowing the metropolitan court to dismiss for a six‑month‑rule violation if the defendant timely moved. However, the court held the defendant waived that remedy by failing to seek dismissal in metropolitan court before being indicted for felony DWI in district court.
Nolle Prosequi and Other Criminal‑Law Consequences
Beyond ending a pending criminal prosecution, a nolle prosequi has important collateral effects under several New Mexico statutes and regulations.
Return of Seized Property
Under the Forfeiture Act, if the underlying related criminal charge is disposed of by nolle prosequi, the law enforcement agency holding seized property must return the property to the owner within a reasonable time not exceeding five days. Section 31‑27‑10(A)(4) NMSA 1978 expressly lists “disposal of the criminal charge that was the basis of the forfeiture proceedings by nolle prosequi” as a trigger for mandatory return, and the agency is responsible for any damages, storage fees, and related costs for property so returned.
DNA Sample and Record Expungement
New Mexico’s DNA Identification Act provides that if the arrest leading to inclusion of a person’s DNA sample resulted in a felony charge that has been resolved by dismissal, nolle prosequi, successful completion of a pre‑prosecution diversion program, conditional discharge, misdemeanor conviction, or acquittal, the person may request expungement of their DNA sample and records from the state DNA identification system. Section 29‑16‑10(A)(2)(a) NMSA 1978 lists resolution by nolle prosequi as one of the qualifying outcomes.
The implementing regulation at 10.14.200.12 NMAC likewise provides that when an arrest that led to inclusion of an arrestee DNA sample results in a nolle prosequi (among other listed dispositions), the person may seek expungement, and the administrative center must act upon a proper request and documentation.
Criminal Record Expungement (Release Without Conviction)
Under the Criminal Record Expungement Act, a person “released without conviction” may, after one year from final disposition, petition for expungement of arrest and public records relating to the case. Section 29‑3A‑4(E) NMSA 1978 defines “released without a conviction” to include outcomes such as acquittal, dismissal, referral to a diversion program, conditional discharge, and explicitly “a nolle prosequi, a no bill or other dismissal.” When the court grants the petition, it must order expungement of all arrest and related public records and prohibit release of such records except by court order.
Call 505.585.1235 or email contact@landofenchantment.law to schedule a free consultation.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting Land of Enchantment Law does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Land of Enchantment Law | 505.585.1235 |Law Office of Johnn Osborn P.C.
Disclaimer: The information in this article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting Land of Enchantment Law does not create an attorney-client relationship.