Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
State of New Mexico v. Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman
Date: 11-20-2024
Case Number: A-1-CA-41647
Judge: David Pederson
Court: District Court, McKinley County, New Mexico
Plaintiff's Attorney: McKinley County, New Mexico District Attorney's Office
Defendant's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Gallup Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory
Description:
Gallup, New Mexico criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with DWI.
The District Court dismissed the charge against Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman based on the violation of Defendants right's right to a speedy trial on a first offense aggravated driving while under the influence.
Here, the only factor in contention is the extent of prejudice to Defendant resulting from delay, as the parties do not contest the district court's findings on any other factors. [BIC 7, 13-17; AB 8] Because, on balance, those other factors do not weigh heavily in Defendant's favor, she must "show particularized prejudice in order to prove [her right to a] speedy trial was violated." State v. Wood, 2022-NMCA-009, ¶ 21, 504 P.3d 579. The State argues that Defendant failed to demonstrate the requisite particularized prejudice, while Defendant contends that we should defer to the district court's findings to the contrary. [BIC 7, 13-17; AB 8] In determining
"whether [a d]efendant has suffered prejudice from the delay in bringing [their] case to trial, we analyze three interests that are affected by the right to a speedy trial: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired." State v. Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 84, 366 P.3d 1121 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our analysis focuses on the second of these interests, as there is no indication that Defendant's incarceration on the day of her arrest could constitute oppressive pretrial incarceration, [BIC 14] nor is there indication or argument by Defendant that her defense was impaired in any relevant manner. See id. ¶ 85 (explaining that the third interest aims to protect "the defendant's ability to assert an adequate defense at trial from the prejudicial effect of the passage of time, such as the death or disappearance of a witness or the loss of memory"). "Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating and substantiating prejudice." State v. Parrish, 2011-NMCA-033, ¶ 32, 149 N.M. 506, 252 P.3d 730.
State v. Cadman, A-l-CA-41647 (N.M. App. Nov 20, 2024)
The District Court dismissed the charge against Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman based on the violation of Defendants right's right to a speedy trial on a first offense aggravated driving while under the influence.
Here, the only factor in contention is the extent of prejudice to Defendant resulting from delay, as the parties do not contest the district court's findings on any other factors. [BIC 7, 13-17; AB 8] Because, on balance, those other factors do not weigh heavily in Defendant's favor, she must "show particularized prejudice in order to prove [her right to a] speedy trial was violated." State v. Wood, 2022-NMCA-009, ¶ 21, 504 P.3d 579. The State argues that Defendant failed to demonstrate the requisite particularized prejudice, while Defendant contends that we should defer to the district court's findings to the contrary. [BIC 7, 13-17; AB 8] In determining
"whether [a d]efendant has suffered prejudice from the delay in bringing [their] case to trial, we analyze three interests that are affected by the right to a speedy trial: (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that the defense will be impaired." State v. Serros, 2016-NMSC-008, ¶ 84, 366 P.3d 1121 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our analysis focuses on the second of these interests, as there is no indication that Defendant's incarceration on the day of her arrest could constitute oppressive pretrial incarceration, [BIC 14] nor is there indication or argument by Defendant that her defense was impaired in any relevant manner. See id. ¶ 85 (explaining that the third interest aims to protect "the defendant's ability to assert an adequate defense at trial from the prejudicial effect of the passage of time, such as the death or disappearance of a witness or the loss of memory"). "Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating and substantiating prejudice." State v. Parrish, 2011-NMCA-033, ¶ 32, 149 N.M. 506, 252 P.3d 730.
State v. Cadman, A-l-CA-41647 (N.M. App. Nov 20, 2024)
Outcome:
Dismissal.
Reversed
Reversed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of State of New Mexico v. Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman?
The outcome was: Dismissal. Reversed
Which court heard State of New Mexico v. Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman?
This case was heard in District Court, McKinley County, New Mexico, NM. The presiding judge was David Pederson.
Who were the attorneys in State of New Mexico v. Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman?
Plaintiff's attorney: McKinley County, New Mexico District Attorney's Office. Defendant's attorney: Click Here For The Best Gallup Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory.
When was State of New Mexico v. Dawn Cadman a/k/a Dwan K. Cadman decided?
This case was decided on November 20, 2024.