State v. Ortiz, 412 P.3d 1132

Ortiz was convicted of great bodily harm by vehicle (DWI), aggravated battery (deadly-weapon vehicle), aggravated DWI (strict liability), and leaving the scene (not appealed here).
At trial Ortiz sought a duress instruction, claiming Victim forcibly pursued and assaulted her (including prior rape years earlier), she fled to her car while intoxicated to escape, Victim jumped into the passenger seat, grabbed her hair, jumped out and ran to the front of the vehicle, and she struck him while driving away.
The district court denied Ortiz’s requested duress instructions before closing arguments.
On appeal Ortiz argued the duress instructions should have been given for (1) aggravated battery and great bodily harm by vehicle (UJI 14-5130) and (2) the strict-liability aggravated DWI (modified Rios/Baca instruction for duress in strict-liability crimes).
The Court of Appeals held Ortiz was entitled to a duress instruction for aggravated battery and great bodily harm by vehicle (reversible error to deny), but not for the strict‑liability aggravated DWI (insufficient prima facie showing of no reasonable legal alternative).
The court reversed the convictions for aggravated battery and great bodily harm by vehicle (remanding for retrial) and affirmed the aggravated DWI and leaving-the-scene convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ortiz was entitled to a duress instruction for great bodily harm by vehicle and aggravated battery	State: Ortiz failed to meet the immediacy and reasonableness elements for duress	Ortiz: her testimony showed subjective fear of immediate great bodily harm and a reasonable person would have tried to escape by driving away	Court: Ortiz made a prima facie showing (subjective immediacy and objective reasonableness); district court erred by refusing UJI 14-5130; convictions reversed and remanded
Whether Ortiz was entitled to a duress instruction for strict‑liability aggravated DWI (modified Rios/Baca instruction)	State: Ortiz had reasonable legal alternatives (call father/police, ask roommate, leave without keys/phone, lock car and call) so she failed the ‘‘no reasonable legal alternative’’ element	Ortiz: immediacy of assault and Victim’s forcible entry into car left no time or legal alternative to driving away	Court: subjective immediacy satisfied, but Ortiz failed to meet the objective Rios element (no reasonable legal alternative); district court correctly refused modified duress instruction; aggravated DWI affirmed
Whether convictions violate double jeopardy	State: not reached below	Ortiz: argued double jeopardy based on multiple convictions arising from same conduct	Court: did not reach or decide double jeopardy because two convictions were reversed on instructional error

State v. Castrillo, 112 N.M. 766, 819 P.2d 1324 (N.M. 1991) (duress similar to other justification defenses; prima facie showing required)
Esquibel v. State, 91 N.M. 498, 576 P.2d 1129 (N.M. 1978) (duress question for jury; passage of time does not necessarily defeat immediacy)
State v. Rios, 127 N.M. 334, 980 P.2d 1068 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (duress instruction elements for strict‑liability DWI explained)
State v. Baca, 114 N.M. 668, 845 P.2d 762 (N.M. 1992) (duress in strict‑liability context must be narrowly construed; defendant must show exhaustion of legal alternatives)
State v. Rudolfo, 144 N.M. 305, 187 P.3d 170 (N.M. 2008) (if any reasonable minds could differ, duress/self‑defense instruction should be given)
State v. Munoz, 126 N.M. 371, 970 P.2d 143 (N.M. 1998) (standard of review for jury instruction rulings)