State v. Orquiz, 2 N.M. 297

Defendant drove with his nine-year-old child as a passenger, ran a stop sign, and crashed into a ditch; airbags deployed and the child sustained a busted lip and scratches.
An officer arrived, smelled alcohol, and Defendant claimed brake failure; Defendant later admitted consuming a six-pack of beer that day.
At the hospital, Defendant showed impairment on field sobriety tests; a chemical breath test yielded BACs of .16 and .17.
Defendant was convicted at trial of both DWI and child abuse by endangerment based on the moving DWI with a child present.
The court concluded the DWI moving-driver evidence alone supported the endangerment conviction and remanded to correct the DWI judgment form.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether moving DWI with a child supports endangerment.	State contends moving DWI with a child justifies endangerment.	Defendant argues no endangerment without additional unsafe-driving factors.	Yes; moving DWI with a child suffices to sustain endangerment.
Whether reckless disregard must be shown beyond the DWI to sustain endangerment.	State asserts the endangerment risk is sufficient where child is in the moving vehicle.	Defendant argues plus factors are required beyond DWI.	No additional plus factor needed; the moving DWI with a child creates substantial risk.

Chavez v. State, 146 N.M. 434, 211 P.3d 891 (2009-NMSC-035) (endorsement of endangerment for a drunk driver with a child in the car)
Etsitty v. State, 270 P.3d 1277 (2012-NMCA-012) (limits on endangerment when DWI is non-moving actual-physical-control)
Cotton v. State, 150 N.M. 583, 263 P.3d 925 (2011-NMCA-096) (insufficient evidence where DWI premised on non-driving scenario)
Sutphin v. State, 107 N.M. 126, 753 P.2d 1314 (1988) ( standards for upholding verdicts with substantial evidence)
Gurule v. State, 149 N.M. 599, 252 P.3d 823 (2011-NMCA-042) (DWI is a strict liability crime; endangerment parallels public-safety aims)