State v. Gonzales
263 P.3d 271
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Gonzales drove drunk on the interstate, struck a car, then hit a second car carrying two minors, Manuel (killed) and Deandre (injured).
- Grand jury indicted Gonzales for two counts of negligent child abuse by endangerment, including a count resulting in death, plus aggravated driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene.
- District court denied Gonzales’s motions to dismiss and for directed verdict, and rejected defense requests to require awareness as an element.
- State argued criminal negligence could endanger the public including children, not requiring awareness of a specific child.
- Jury convicted Gonzales of negligent child abuse by endangerment; convictions challenged on sufficiency and double jeopardy grounds, with the State choosing not to pursue vehicular homicide at trial.
- This Court held that criminal negligence must be directed toward a particular child, and that double jeopardy bars retrial for vehicular homicide; convictions reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does negligent child abuse by endangerment require awareness of a particular child? | State argued no awareness needed; conduct risked the general public including children. | Gonzales argued awareness of a specific danger to identifiable children is required. | Awareness of a particular child required; reverse on this basis. |
| Must endangerment be directed at a specific child to sustain a conviction? | State contends any risk to children via public-endangerment suffices. | Gonzales contends risk must be to a particular child within the danger zone. | Risk must be directed toward a particular child; not merely general public risk. |
| Does double jeopardy bar retrial for vehicular homicide after reversal on negligent child abuse? | State could retry for vehicular homicide if warranted. | Double jeopardy prohibits retrial for vehicular homicide once negligent child abuse is reversed. | Double jeopardy bars prosecuting vehicular homicide. |
| Should the negligent child abuse convictions be reversed for insufficiency of the evidence? | State posits sufficient evidence of endangerment. | Gonzales asserts insufficient proof of directing risk to a particular child. | Convictions reversed for lack of proof of targeted child endangerment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chavez v. State, 146 N.M. 434 (2009-NMSC-035) (limits endangerment liability to substantial, foreseeable risk to a child)
- Santillanes v. State, 130 N.M. 464 (2001-NMSC-018) (negligence standard for child abuse by endangerment; need awareness of danger to child)
- Schoonmaker v. State, 143 N.M. 373 (2008-NMSC-010) (criminal negligence requires knowledge or should-know of danger to be criminal)
- Trujillo v. State, 132 N.M. 649 (2002-NMCA-100) (endangerment requires placing child in direct line of danger; mere proximity insufficient)
- Clemonts v. State, 139 N.M. 147 (2006-NMCA-031) (reversed for endangerment that did not place child in direct line of danger)
- Meadors v. State, 121 N.M. 38 (1995-NMSC-024) (cognate/greater-lesser included-offense analysis for double jeopardy)
- State v. Reed, 125 N.M. 552 (1998-NMSC-030) (insufficient evidence for certain child-abuse variants when no identifiable danger shown)