The legal entanglements stemming from a February car accident continue to weave a complex path for former MMA champion Jon Jones. What began as a single misdemeanor charge for allegedly leaving the scene has escalated into a curious case involving new accusations and, perhaps more notably, duplicate legal filings for the same underlying incident in New Mexico.
Court records recently revealed the filing of a second criminal complaint against Jones on June 30th. This new filing replicates the original charge of leaving the scene of an accident but tacks on an additional count: Use of Telephone to Terrify, Intimidate, Threaten, Harass, Annoy or Offend. This development adds another layer to the ongoing saga.
According to the initial police report from the February 21st incident, officers responded to a two-vehicle collision. Inside one vehicle, a woman was found exhibiting signs consistent with significant intoxication and without clothing from the waist down. She identified Jones as the driver who had subsequently fled the scene on foot.
The situation became more complex when the woman reportedly called Jones and allowed a police service aide to speak with him. The aide claimed Jones sounded heavily intoxicated and made statements that could be interpreted as implying potential violence through third parties. Another officer, Andrew Romero, also spoke with Jones on the phone, noting similar “allusions to violence” and an apparent reluctance from the voice on the other end to confirm it was indeed Jon Jones.
Jones later offered his account to police, stating that the woman called him, passed the phone to someone she identified as an officer, but this individual immediately used unprofessional language, leading Jones to question the legitimacy of the caller`s law enforcement claim.
Investigators subsequently obtained Jones` phone records. These records reportedly showed 13 calls from Jones to the woman involved in the accident in the hours following the crash. Furthermore, police noted a gap in Jones` location data, based on his phone records, corresponding with the approximate time of the accident.
Based on the initial investigation, Jones was charged with a single misdemeanor for leaving the scene, to which he has already entered a not-guilty plea. A bench trial for this original charge is currently scheduled for August 14th.
However, it is the filing of the *second* criminal complaint by Officer Romero—one of the officers who spoke with Jones on the phone that night—that has introduced a peculiar legal twist. This new case specifically lists the same charge for leaving the scene of an accident alongside the new telephone charge. An arraignment hearing for this duplicate case is set for August 4th.
In response to this unusual turn of events, Jones` attorney, Christopher Dodd, has swiftly filed a motion requesting the dismissal of the second case. Dodd`s argument centers on the principle of mandatory joinder, asserting that it was wholly improper to file a separate case based on the exact same factual allegations for which Jones is already facing prosecution.
“Put simply,” Dodd`s motion states, “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.” He argues that Jones is now improperly forced to defend himself against two separate legal actions concerning the identical underlying incident.
Dodd`s filing raises pointed questions, pondering why an Albuquerque Police Department detective and officer, both involved in the investigation, would seemingly fail to coordinate the filing of charges, or, more critically, whether they intentionally violated the mandatory joinder rule for some “improper strategic purpose.”
As of now, the assigned judge has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss, leaving the second criminal complaint active and adding a layer of legal redundancy to Jones` ongoing issues. The situation is further contextualized by Jones` recent announcement of retirement from MMA in June, shortly after which the initial charge came to light. Despite the legal cloud, Jones has since hinted at a return to competition, including re-entering the UFC`s anti-doping program.
The coming weeks are set to bring clarity, or perhaps further complexity, as the courts address the merits of the duplicate charges and the attorney`s challenge to what appears to be an unconventional application of the legal process.
