Just when it seemed the legal situation surrounding MMA heavyweight Jon Jones` alleged involvement in a February car accident was heading toward a resolution, a new development has added a significant layer of complexity.
Recent court filings in New Mexico reveal that a *second* criminal case has been initiated against Jones concerning the very same incident that occurred on February 21st. While the initial case charged Jones with leaving the scene of an accident – a charge to which he has pleaded not guilty and awaits a bench trial – this new complaint, filed on June 30th, remarkably includes a duplicate charge for leaving the scene of an accident. Adding to the unusual nature of the filing, a second charge has been levied: Use of Telephone to Terrify, Intimidate, Threaten, Harass, Annoy or Offend.
The original police report from the February incident provides context for the charges. Officers responding to a two-vehicle crash found a woman in one of the cars who appeared significantly intoxicated and lacked clothing from the waist down. She identified Jones as the driver of her vehicle at the time of the collision, alleging he subsequently fled the scene on foot.
According to reports, the woman then contacted Jones by phone. A police service aide reportedly spoke with someone believed to be Jones, describing the individual as seemingly heavily intoxicated and making statements that could be interpreted as vague threats or allusions to employing force via third parties. Backup was requested, and Officer Andrew Romero also spoke with the individual on the phone, noting similar “allusions to violence” while the caller evaded confirming their identity as Jon Jones.
Jones` later account to police differed. He stated that the woman from the accident called him and handed the phone to someone she identified as a police officer. Jones claimed this individual immediately used unprofessional language, causing him to question their legitimacy as a law enforcement official.
Investigators eventually subpoenaed Jones` phone records. These records reportedly showed 13 calls placed from Jones to the woman involved in the accident in the hours following the crash. Furthermore, a gap in Jones` location data, based on his phone, was noted, coinciding with the timeframe of the accident.
Based on the initial investigation, a misdemeanor charge for leaving the scene was filed, leading to the first case against Jones. The new, second criminal complaint, filed by Officer Romero, appears to stem from the same set of circumstances but introduces the redundant `leaving the scene` count alongside the new `use of telephone` charge, presumably related to the phone conversations and activity after the crash.
In response to this peculiar legal maneuver, Jones` attorney, Christopher Dodd, has wasted no time in filing a motion to dismiss the second case. The core of the defense argument rests on the principle of mandatory joinder – the legal rule that generally prevents prosecuting someone in separate cases for charges arising from the same criminal incident. Essentially, you can`t get two bites at the same apple.
“Put simply, Mr. Jones is already facing prosecution in a separate case for the same factual allegations set forth in the criminal complaint in this matter, and it was wholly improper for this separate case to be filed,” Dodd stated in his motion to the court. He added, “Mr. Jones now is forced to defend himself against two separate cases involves the exact same factual allegations.”
Dodd`s filing also raises questions about the coordination, or lack thereof, between the officers involved in the investigation, speculating whether the dual filings were a result of communication breakdown or perhaps an intentional, though improper, strategic decision. Either way, the defense contends the result is an impermissible double charge for the same underlying events.
As of now, the second case remains active with an arraignment hearing scheduled. However, the judge assigned to the case has yet to rule on the motion to dismiss. The outcome of this motion will significantly impact the path forward for Jones` legal battles stemming from the February incident.
This legal entanglement continues to unfold against the backdrop of Jones` recent announcement of retirement from the sport in June, closely followed by the initial charge becoming public knowledge. While Jones has since hinted at a potential comeback, notably mentioning re-entering the UFC`s anti-doping program, his immediate future appears intertwined with navigating the New Mexico court system and resolving these persistent charges.
