The legal troubles surrounding former UFC champion Jon Jones have taken a peculiar turn in New Mexico, adding layers of complexity to a case stemming from a February car accident. While Jones was already facing a charge for allegedly leaving the scene of the incident, court records now show a *second* case has been filed against him relating to the very same event – complete with a duplicate charge and a surprising new count.
According to details emerging from online court documents and confirmed by officials, a new criminal complaint was initiated on June 30. This complaint mirrors the initial case by including a charge for leaving the scene of an accident. However, it also introduces a second, distinct charge: Use of Telephone to Terrify, Intimidate, Threaten, Harass, Annoy or Offend.
The backdrop to these charges traces back to a crash on February 21. Responding officers found one of the involved vehicles containing a woman who reportedly showed signs of significant intoxication and was only partially clothed. This woman identified Jones as the driver of her vehicle at the time of the collision, stating he subsequently fled the location on foot.
During the immediate aftermath, the woman reportedly contacted Jones via phone, and a police service aide present at the scene spoke with him. The aide’s account alleges that Jones sounded heavily intoxicated and made statements implying he could use “lethal force through third parties.” Backup was requested, and a responding officer also spoke with the person on the phone, noting similar “allusions to violence.” The caller reportedly avoided confirming if they were, in fact, Jon Jones.
When investigators later made direct contact with Jones, his version of events differed. He claimed the woman from the accident called him and passed the phone to someone identified as a police officer. Jones asserted that this individual immediately used “unprofessional language,” leading him to doubt the caller`s legitimacy as a law enforcement official.
Further investigation involved subpoenaing Jones` phone records. These records indicated Jones called the woman involved in the accident 13 times in the hours following the crash, between 2:17 a.m. and 11:34 a.m. the next morning. Crucially, phone location data reportedly showed a gap from 11:51 p.m. until 2:11 a.m., a timeframe encompassing the reported accident.
Based on the initial investigation, a misdemeanor charge for leaving the scene was filed in one case. Jones had already entered a plea of not guilty to this charge, with a bench trial scheduled for August 14.
The new criminal complaint, however, was filed by the very officer who responded as backup to the scene and spoke with Jones on the phone. This separate case now contains *two* charges: one for leaving the scene (a seemingly identical charge to the first case) and the new charge related to using the phone to allegedly terrify or threaten.
An arraignment hearing for this newer case is set for August 4. However, Jones` attorney, Christopher Dodd, wasted little time. On July 9, he filed a motion seeking to dismiss this second case entirely. The core argument? It constitutes an improper duplicate prosecution for the same underlying incident.
“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 wrote in his filing. He contends the case violates the “mandatory joinder rule,” which generally requires related charges stemming from the same incident to be brought together in one case.
Dodd highlighted the unusual situation of defending against two separate cases based on the exact same facts. He speculated whether this resulted from a lack of communication between law enforcement officers involved in the investigation or, perhaps more pointedly (and with a touch of legal skepticism), if officers “intentionally violated the same mandatory joinder rule for some improper strategic purpose.” Either way, the legal consequence is the same, in his view: the second case should be dismissed as Jones is “impermissibly charged twice for the same underlying incident.”
As of now, the judge assigned to the second case has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The criminal complaint remains active, leaving Jones navigating two separate legal proceedings originating from a single February night.
This legal entanglement adds another layer to Jones` recent activities. In June, he announced his retirement from the sport. Only hours later, details of the initial charge from the February accident surfaced. More recently, Jones has hinted at a potential return to competition, stating he would re-enter the UFC`s anti-doping program, particularly following discussions around a possible future fight at the White House.
While his career plans remain fluid, his immediate future appears to be tied to navigating the complex, and now seemingly duplicated, legal landscape in New Mexico.
