State v. Consaul
2014 NMSC 030
N.M.2014Background
- Daniel Consaul was convicted of child abuse resulting in great bodily harm to his infant nephew, Jack Consaul.
- Indictment charged negligent or intentional child abuse under 30-6-1(D),(E); theory centered on swaddling tightly and leaving unattended.
- State trial theory initially mirrored indictment; during trial it asserted intentional suffocation by pillow or hand.
- Defense sought separate jury instructions and separate verdict forms for negligent and intentional theories; trial court denied.
- Doctors' testimony linked to medical causation and suffocation theories; State pivoted to non-accidental suffocation.
- Court reverses conviction, dismisses charges with prejudice, and overhauls aspects of the child abuse jurisprudence toward recklessness rather than negligence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether separate jury instructions were required | State | Consaul entitled to separate instructions | Reversible error; separate instructions required |
| Whether evidence supported reckless/negligent proof | State | Insufficient causation evidence | Insufficient evidence; reversal on sufficiency grounds |
| Whether evidence supported intentional suffocation claim | State | Evidence showed intentional suffocation possible | Lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt; intentional suffocation not proven |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cabezuela, 2011-NMSC-041, 150 N.M. 654, 265 P.3d 705 (N.M. 2011) (discussed separate instructions for negligent and intentional child abuse)
- Santillanes v. State, 1993-NMSC-012, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358 (N.M. 1993) (defined civil vs criminal negligence in child-abuse statute)
- Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC-010, 143 N.M. 373, 176 P.3d 1105 (N.M. 2008) (concern about negligent child abuse jury instruction language)
- Mascarenas, 2000-NMSC-017, 129 N.M. 230, 4 P.3d 1221 (N.M. 2000) (negligence standard ambiguity in child abuse)
- Jojola, 2005-NMCA-119, 138 N.M. 459, 122 P.3d 43 (N.M. App. 2005) (sufficiency of evidence review; double jeopardy considerations)
- Dowling, 2011-NMSC-016, 150 N.M. 110, 257 P.3d 930 (N.M. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Sena, 2008-NMSC-053, 144 N.M. 821, 192 P.3d 1198 (N.M. 2008) (elemental sufficiency review for criminal convictions)