State v. Granillo
10 N.M. 615
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Police stopped Veronica Granillo after witnesses reported her car driving on the wrong side of the road for several blocks; the car stopped in the center of the road.
- Officers smelled alcohol, observed open bottles in the front seat, and found Granillo unable to complete sobriety tasks; a three-year-old child was restrained in a rear car seat.
- Granillo was arrested; she was charged with intentional child abuse by endangerment (among other counts), tried, and convicted by a jury on the intentional child abuse by endangerment count.
- Granillo appealed, arguing insufficient evidence (both actus reus and mens rea), erroneous jury instruction on the elements, and improper limitation of closing argument.
- The Court of Appeals limited review to the mens rea issue, held that intentional child abuse by endangerment requires a conscious objective to endanger a child, found the evidence insufficient to prove that mens rea, and reversed and vacated the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Granillo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper mens rea for "intentional" child abuse by endangerment under § 30-6-1(D)(1) | "Intentional" is satisfied if defendant purposely engaged in the underlying conduct (e.g., drove while intoxicated); conscious wrongdoing/awareness of conduct suffices | "Intentional" requires a conscious objective to cause the proscribed result — to endanger the child | Held: "Intentional" means a conscious objective to cause the result (to endanger the child); Model Penal Code purpose/purposefully standard adopted |
| Sufficiency of evidence of mens rea (intent to endanger) | Evidence of intoxicated, erratic driving with a child in the car supports a reasonable inference of intentional endangerment | Evidence showed impaired driving but not purposeful courting of danger or any act aimed at putting the child at risk; insufficient to prove conscious objective | Held: Evidence insufficient to prove conscious objective to endanger; conviction reversed |
| Whether the child was endangered (actus reus) | Driving while intoxicated with a child in the car placed child at substantial and foreseeable risk | Granillo contended evidence did not show substantial/foreseeable risk beyond ordinary or was otherwise insufficient | Not reached (court reversed on mens rea); the opinion does not resolve this issue |
| Jury instruction & limits on closing argument | State maintained instructions and limits were proper | Granillo argued instructions misstated elements and closing argument was improperly limited | Not reached (court reversed on mens rea); no decision on these claims |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422 (use of Model Penal Code as guidance on mens rea)
- United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (criticizing the specific-intent/general-intent dichotomy)
- Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624 (permitting convictions when jurors disagree on theory/mode of commission within constitutional limits)
- State v. Carrasco, 124 N.M. 64, 946 P.2d 1075 (referring to Model Penal Code provisions for mens rea analysis)
- State v. Schoonmaker, 136 N.M. 749, 105 P.3d 302 (construing intentional mens rea in child-abuse context consistent with conscious-object analysis)
- State v. Montoya, 345 P.3d 1056 (discussing that endangerment can be committed intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly and implications for instructions)
- State v. Consaul, 332 P.3d 850 (clarifying mens rea terminology and citing Model Penal Code principles)