State v. Hertzog, 464 P.3d 1090

On Sept. 12, 2015, after drinking, Hertzog (defendant) drove with his girlfriend (victim) in his pickup; during an argument the victim jumped from the moving truck (≈40 mph).
When the victim jumped she fell and the truck’s rear passenger tire ran over her head, killing her instantly; her body later rested near the curb.
Hertzog did not stop at the scene, testified he believed he saw the victim sitting up with people around, called a friend to pick her up, and only learned of her death the next day.
At trial witnesses testified Hertzog was driving normally; a reconstruction expert said a heavy truck could pass over a body without the driver feeling a distinct vibration.
Hertzog was convicted of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in great bodily harm or death (NMSA § 66-7-201(B)), sentenced to 18 months with 9 suspended, and appealed arguing (1) the jury should have been instructed to define “accident” (Hertzog urged it means a collision) and (2) insufficient evidence that he knew his vehicle was involved in an accident.

Issue	State's Argument	Hertzog's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to define “accident” in the hit‑and‑run instruction	"Accident" is broad and need not be limited to collisions; the given instruction was adequate	"Accident" means a collision (vehicle struck a person/object); a definitional instruction was required	Court held "accident" is broader than "collision," refused Hertzog’s narrowing instruction, and found no reversible error
Whether evidence was sufficient that Hertzog knew his vehicle was involved in an accident	Testimony and admissions (Hertzog knew victim jumped from the moving truck) supported a reasonable inference of knowledge	No proof Hertzog knew his vehicle struck or killed the victim	Court held evidence sufficient; Hertzog’s awareness that she jumped satisfied the knowledge element

Jackson v. State, 672 P.2d 660 (1983) (harmless‑error principle where an instruction imposes a stricter burden than statute)
Wylie v. State, 797 P.2d 651 (Alaska Ct. App. 1990) (broad construction of "involved in an accident" to advance policies preventing evasion and ensuring aid)
State v. Rodgers, 909 P.2d 445 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995) (passenger jumping from moving car can make driver "involved in an accident")
State v. Ramos, 305 P.3d 921 (2013) (legislative word choice matters; omitted specificity implies broader meaning)
State v. Lovato, 256 P.3d 982 (2011) (judicial construction explains statute's continuous meaning since enactment)