State v. Montoya, 2015 NMSC 010

Background

Baby Breandra (17 months) died while in Nathan Montoya’s care; autopsy showed hundreds of bruises, subdural/subarachnoid hemorrhages, and internal abdominal trauma; pathologist concluded homicide by multiple blunt-force injuries.
Montoya was charged with child abuse resulting in death (intentional or reckless) under NMSA §30-6-1(D),(H); convicted of intentional child abuse resulting in death and sentenced to life.
At trial the court gave a combined-elements instruction (intentional or reckless in a single elements instruction) plus a step-down instruction and special interrogatories; the jury returned a unanimous finding that the offense was committed intentionally.
Montoya made varied statements to police and witnesses: admitted spanking and grabbing ears, later claimed accidental bathtub fall; friend saw the child earlier that day apparently fine.
On appeal Montoya argued jury instructions were erroneous/confusing, expert pathology testimony was improper, evidence was insufficient, counsel ineffective (abandoned), and sentencing judge abused discretion by refusing to consider mitigating circumstances.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Montoya)	Held
Jury instructions: combining intentional and reckless elements in one instruction	Combined instruction plus step-down/special verdicts were adequate; jury was correctly informed	Combined instruction misstated law, confused jury, reversible error; separate instructions required	Affirmed: instructions, read as a whole with step-down and special interrogatories, were not reversible error
Whether reckless child abuse is a lesser-included offense of intentional child abuse	Reckless may be a lesser-included offense in death cases; step-down appropriate when evidence supports it	Prior precedent treated the offenses as mutually exclusive; argued not lesser-included	Held: Reckless (formerly called negligent) child abuse resulting in a death of a child <12 is a lesser-included offense of intentional abuse; courts may give step-down instructions when evidence supports both theories
Admissibility of forensic pathologist’s testimony ("constellation of injuries")	Expert testimony was proper and identified multiple blunt-force injuries as cause of death	Testimony lacked specificity, allowed speculation about which injury was lethal; challenged under rules for expert opinion	Held: Admission was not plain error (defendant failed to preserve); testimony was specific enough and not outcome-determinative given other evidence
Sentencing: refusal to consider mitigating circumstances	Trial judge has authority and obligation to consider mitigation and may alter a basic life sentence under the Criminal Sentencing Act	Judge refused to consider mitigation, believing life sentence mandatory	Held: Abuse of discretion; remanded for resentencing for consideration of mitigating factors (court may reduce life sentence within statutory limits)

Key Cases Cited

State v. Consaul, 332 P.3d 850 (N.M. 2014) (clarifies reckless standard for child abuse and warns when separate instructions are required)
State v. Cabezuela, 265 P.3d 705 (N.M. 2011) (reversed where jury instruction mixed uncharged reckless theory into intentional charge)
State v. Schoonmaker, 176 P.3d 1105 (N.M. 2008) (discussed mens rea distinctions between intentional and negligent/reckless child abuse)
State v. Lucero, 863 P.2d 1071 (N.M. 1993) (expert testimony repeating complainant’s statements and vouching for truthfulness can be prejudicial)
State v. Juan, 242 P.3d 314 (N.M. 2010) (trial courts must consider mitigating circumstances and may alter a basic life sentence under sentencing statutes)
State v. Meadors, 908 P.2d 731 (N.M. 1995) (sets out tests for lesser-included offense analysis)
State v. Garcia, 237 P.3d 716 (N.M. 2010) (discusses step-down instructions and jury procedure for varying degrees of homicide / included offenses)