New Mexico court reverses ruling that overturned a murder conviction on speedy trial violations
SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — The New Mexico Supreme Court has upheld a man’s murder conviction, overruling a state Court of Appeals decision that found his constitutional right to a speedy trial had been violated.
Jeremiah Gurule waited nearly six years in jail before a jury convicted him in 2016 of murder and evidence tampering in the stabbing death of his girlfriend, the Albuquerque Journal reported.
But the state’s high court ruled 3-2 Thursday that Gurule’s speedy trial rights weren’t violated because the circumstances involved lengthy considerations of his mental competence to stand trial.
Gurule, 36, was convicted by a 2nd Judicial District Court jury of second-degree murder and tampering with evidence in the April 2010 stabbing death of 22-year-old University of New Mexico student Elizabeth Brito.
According to the Journal, witnesses testified that Gurule had been smoking methamphetamine before he stabbed Brito 26 times in the neck while she was on the phone with a 911 operator.
In 2019, the New Mexico Court of Appeals reversed Gurule’s conviction in a split decision — remanding the case to District Court with instructions to dismiss the charges.
The appellate court ruled that the 70-month delay in the trial weighted heavily against state prosecutors and that Gurule’s constitutional rights to a speedy trial were violated.
“The Court of Appeals erred in weighting that delay against the State,” Supreme Court Justice David Thomson wrote for the three-member majority. “Instead, we weigh the reasons for the delay in large part against (Gurule) because much of the delay was the result of multiple considerations of (Gurule’s) competence to stand trial.”
Thomson also said the state Supreme Court has previously ruled that delays resulting from competency considerations do not affect the defendant’s right to a speedy trial.
The New Mexico Correction Department told the Journal that Gurule has a projected release date of November 2025, but that timetable is “subject to change, based on his conduct.”
Disclaimer: The copyright of this article belongs to the original author. Reposting this article is solely for the purpose of information dissemination and does not constitute any investment advice. If there is any infringement, please contact us immediately. We will make corrections or deletions as necessary. Thank you.