455 P.3d 877
N.M. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Joseph Grubb was on probation; after drug-related charges the district court revoked probation, sentenced him to 2.5 years, and granted a furlough until December 31, 2011.
- Grubb did not report on December 31, 2011; he was later arrested under an alias while detained on unrelated charges.
- In October 2014 the State indicted Grubb for escape from jail (Section 30-22-8); a jury convicted him.
- At trial the court, without defense objection, instructed the jury using a modified UJI 14-2228 (escape from an inmate-release program) rather than UJI 14-2221 (escape from jail).
- On appeal Grubb argued the instruction constituted fundamental error (convicting him of an uncharged crime), that the evidence was insufficient, and that pre-indictment delay violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction / Fundamental error | State: UJI 14-2228 was factually closest and should be used/modified for this case | Grubb: Instruction used elements of a different crime (inmate-release) and deprived him of notice and defense | Reversed: fundamental error—jury was instructed on a crime (inmate-release escape) for which defendant was not charged; reversal and new trial required |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: Evidence (revocation order, bench warrant, alias arrests) sufficed under the instructions actually given | Grubb: Evidence insufficient for escape-from-jail elements | Court: Evidence was sufficient under the (erroneous) instructions; retrial not barred by double jeopardy |
| Pre-indictment delay / Due process | State: Delay did not prejudice defendant nor was it tactical | Grubb: 2-year delay prejudiced him (lost chance at concurrent sentences) | Held: No due-process violation—prejudice unsupported and speculative; State’s motive not shown |
| Interchangeability of UJIs (14-2221 vs 14-2228) | State: UJI 14-2228 may be used for escape-from-jail per use note | Grubb: UJIs are not interchangeable because statutes define distinct offenses and elements differ | Held: UJIs not interchangeable; 14-2228 applies only when facts show an inmate-release program (statutory specific purposes), which was not shown here |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 146 N.M. 550, 212 P.3d 438 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (conviction for uncharged crime violates due process/notice)
- Jackson v. State, 100 N.M. 487, 672 P.2d 660 (N.M. 1983) (failure to instruct on essential elements is fundamental error)
- State v. Trujillo, 106 N.M. 616, 747 P.2d 262 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (statutes defining escape offenses must match prosecution theory)
- State v. Rosaire, 123 N.M. 701, 945 P.2d 66 (N.M. 1997) (willfulness is essential element for inmate-release escape)
- State v. Dowling, 150 N.M. 110, 257 P.3d 903 (N.M. 2011) (sufficiency review measured against instructions actually given)
- State v. Nozie, 146 N.M. 142, 207 P.3d 1119 (N.M. 2009) (intent may be proven by circumstantial evidence)