State v. Percival
34,385
| N.M. Ct. App. | Feb 6, 2017Background
- At 2:45 a.m. on Feb. 16, 2012, APD stopped Raquel Percival for erratic driving and a defective license-plate lamp; officers observed alcohol odor, bloodshot eyes, and slurred speech.
- Percival was arrested and charged with aggravated DWI (per se .16 BAC) and careless driving; she did not deny drinking but claimed she left a residence because she feared for her safety (duress).
- Defendant tendered jury instructions that would make the absence of duress an essential element of the charged offenses; the metropolitan court refused those and instead gave UJI 14-4506 (aggravated DWI), UJI 14-4505 (careless driving), and UJI 14-5130 (duress).
- While orally reading UJI 14-5130, the court misstated the State’s burden (said the State must prove the defendant acted under reasonable fear); the written instructions, however, correctly stated the burden.
- Defendant was convicted in metropolitan court; the district court affirmed. On appeal, Percival argued (1) the jury was incompletely instructed regarding duress and (2) the misreading of the oral instruction was fundamental error.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the instructions as given (read together with UJI 14-5130) properly instructed on all essential elements and the oral misstatement was cured by correct written instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the metropolitan court erred by refusing to add absence of duress as an essential element of aggravated DWI and careless driving | State: UJI 14-4506 and 14-4505 (with UJI 14-5130) sufficiently instruct on essential elements; duress is a separate, excusing defense | Percival: Her duress claim put unlawfulness/essential elements at issue; court should have added absence-of-duress language as element | Court: No reversible error — duress excuses conduct and does not negate elements; the given instructions (with UJI 14-5130) instructed on all essential questions of law |
| Whether UJI 14-5130 contradicts or creates ambiguity with UJI 14-4506/14-4505 | State: Instructions are complementary; jurors consider duress only after finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt | Percival: The instruction scheme could confuse jurors and fails to place burden clearly | Court: Not contradictory or ambiguous when read together; two-step process is coherent and not misleading |
| Whether the oral misstatement of the State’s burden in reading UJI 14-5130 was fundamental error | State: Written instructions were provided to jurors and cure any oral misstatement; jurors presumed to follow written instructions | Percival: Misreading misstated burden of proof and could cause juror confusion; fundamental error review applies | Court: No fundamental error — error was corrected by accurate written instructions available during deliberations |
| Whether the error (if any) was preserved and subject to reversible vs. fundamental-error review | State: Defendant preserved instruction objection generally but did not object to oral misstatement; preserved claim reviewed for reversible error; oral misstatement unpreserved, reviewed for fundamental error | Percival: Argued both preserved and unpreserved bases | Court: Preserved instruction challenge reviewed for reversible error (and rejected); oral misstatement unpreserved and not fundamental because corrected by written packet |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellis, 144 N.M. 253, 186 P.3d 245 (N.M. 2008) (trial court’s rejection of proposed jury instructions reviewed de novo; failure to instruct on all questions of law is reversible error)
- State v. Parish, 118 N.M. 39, 878 P.2d 988 (N.M. 1994) (an erroneous instruction cannot be cured by a subsequent correct one when an essential element is omitted)
- State v. Rios, 127 N.M. 334, 980 P.2d 1068 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (duress excuses intentional conduct and does not negate an element of the offense)
- State v. Armendarez, 113 N.M. 335, 825 P.2d 1245 (N.M. 1992) (written jury instructions can cure prejudice from misstatements of law during oral charge; jurors presumed to follow written instructions)
- State v. Gurule, 149 N.M. 599, 252 P.3d 823 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (aggravated DWI is a strict liability offense and does not require criminal intent)