State v. Anderson and State v. Wilson, 493 P.3d 434

Background

On April 30, 2017, inmates in Pod D-2 at Otero County Detention Center refused a lockdown during a shift change, barricaded the pod entrance with a mattress and plastic cots, and poured liquid soap on stairs; the disturbance lasted ~90 seconds and ended when officers used pepper spray, tasers, and shock shields.
Dustin Wilson and Tobby Anderson were charged and convicted under NMSA 1978 § 30-22-19 (unlawful assault on a jail); Wilson also convicted of fourth-degree battery on a peace officer (not appealed).
The State introduced stills and surveillance footage showing both defendants participating in the confrontation.
Defendants appealed, raising: statutory vagueness of § 30-22-19; error in the assault-on-a-jail jury instruction; insufficiency of evidence; Anderson additionally appealed denial of lesser-included instructions and denial of a continuance.
The Court consolidated the appeals and affirmed the convictions.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether § 30-22-19 is unconstitutionally vague	Plain language proscribes violent attacks on jail facilities and operations; statute gives fair notice	Statute vague without requiring external forcible entry or specific intent; "assault" and "jail" undefined, risking arbitrary enforcement	Statute not unconstitutionally vague; "assault" construed by common meaning (attack violently); statute covers internal uprisings as well as external raids
Whether the jury instruction on assault on a jail was fundamentally erroneous	No preserved objection; instruction used lay meaning of "assault" and complied with UJI notes	Instruction omitted definitional guidance for "assault" and "jail," and court failed to answer jury inquiry, producing fundamental error	No fundamental error; missing dictionary definition not akin to missing-element instruction; evidence made jury confusion unlikely
Sufficiency of the evidence to support assault-on-a-jail convictions	Video/stills showed inmates barricading and actively resisting officers; no requirement to prove property damage or specific intent	No evidence of property damage, entry, injury (other than to prisoners), or intent to aid escape	Evidence was sufficient when viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict; convictions affirmed
Whether disorderly conduct or evading/obstructing an officer are lesser-included offenses of assault on a jail (Anderson)	Neither offense is a lesser-included offense of § 30-22-19 and facts did not fit those statutes	Requested lesser instructions should have been given	Denial of lesser-included instructions not reversible error; neither offense is a lesser-included offense under the facts
Whether denial of Anderson's motion for continuance was an abuse of discretion	Court not required to recite Torres factors on record; last-minute continuance would unduly inconvenience court and parties	Continuance needed for counsel preparation and to develop constitutional challenge to the statute	No abuse of discretion; Torres factors (length, inconvenience, prior continuance, prejudice, etc.) support denial and Anderson showed no prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (U.S. 1971) (ordinance criminalizing conduct that "annoys" police held unconstitutionally vague)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1972) (enforcement of vague laws requires some police discretion but standards must exist)
State v. Mascareñas, 129 N.M. 230, 4 P.3d 1221 (N.M. 2000) (failure to define a term can be akin to omission of an element when it affects the standard of conviction)
State v. Luna, 458 P.3d 457 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018) (failure to give definitional instruction may cause fundamental error when legal meaning differs from lay meaning)
State v. Chavez, 146 N.M. 434, 211 P.3d 891 (N.M. 2009) (statutory felony classification reflects legislative judgment about seriousness)
State v. Astorga, 343 P.3d 1245 (N.M. 2015) (framework for reviewing unpreserved error as "fundamental error")