State v. Garcia, 294 P.3d 1256

Defendant Joe Garcia was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM), a fourth-degree felony, based on a letter found in his daughter Y.G.'s underwear drawer.
Y.G. testified she recognized Defendant's handwriting on the five-page explicit letter describing sexual acts between a writer and the reader.
The letter was discovered after Y.G. and her mother left the house; Defendant was the only male adult in the home when the letter was found.
The State alleged, and the jury found, that the letter, delivered by Garcia, tended to cause or encourage Y.G. to engage in incest or to act in a manner injurious to her morals or health.
The district court instructed on CDM elements, and Garcia challenged sufficiency and various constitutional challenges on appeal.
On appeal, the court analyzed the sufficiency of the evidence, and the constitutionality of the CDM statute under First Amendment and due process grounds, as well as the general/specific charging rule.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove CDM	State	Garcia	Sufficient evidence supported conviction
CDM as content-neutral regulation of speech	State argues CDM is neutral and valid	Garcia argues content-based and unconstitutional	CDM is content-neutral; intermediate scrutiny applied and upheld
CDM overbreadth under First Amendment	State	Garcia	Not overbroad; speech burden is limited and substantial interest served
CDM vagueness under due process	State	Garcia	Not void-for-vagueness; statute sufficiently guided by case law
General/specific charging rule applicability	State	Garcia	CDM not required to charge under sexually oriented materials statute

State v. Sena, 2008-NMSC-053 (N.M. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-059 (N.M. 1997) (evidence standards and circumstantial proof guidance)
Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (U.S. 1997) (content-neutral regulation scrutiny framework)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (U.S. 2008) (overbreadth doctrine and substantial protected speech inquiry)
Brown v. Entm't Merchants Assocs., 131 S. Ct. 2729 (U.S. 2011) (speech directed at children and First Amendment protection)
State v. McKinley, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964 (N.M. 1949) (CDM vagueness upheld; community standards adequate)
State v. Pitts, 103 N.M. 778, 714 P.2d 582 (N.M. 1986) (CDM precedent and vagueness considerations)
State v. Cuevas, 94 N.M. 792, 617 P.2d 1307 (N.M. 1980) (general/specific rule and CDM charging discretion)
State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024 (N.M. 2011) (modified Block Burger analysis in vague statutes)
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425 (U.S. 2002) (strict scrutiny for content-based regulation; narrowing tailoring)
Barr v. State, 1999-NMCA-081 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (CDM purpose to protect minors; community standards)
Ebert v. State, 2011-NMCA-098 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (First Amendment and vagueness standards)
Cuevas, 94 N.M. 792, 617 P.2d 1307 (N.M. 1980) (application of general/specific rule to CDM context)