State v. Ramos, 305 P.3d 921

Ex parte temporary order of protection issued Oct 31, 2008 prohibiting proximity to Andrea Reed (25-yard public, 100-yard home/work) and warning of criminal consequences for violations.
Defendant Ramos was served the order at work; he did not read it and claimed to interpret “stay away” as no contact.
On Nov 6, 2008 Ramos went to a bar where Reed and her students were present within 25 yards; he remained for 10–15 minutes after being informed Reed wanted him to leave.
Defendant was arrested for violation of the order; trial occurred March 25, 2009.
Jury instruction did not include a “knowingly violated” element; district court gave general intent instruction (UJI 14-141) instead.
Conviction reversed and remanded for new trial to address whether a knowing violation is required under § 40-13-6(D), (F).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether knowledge is an element of violating a protective order	Ramos; 40-13-6(D),(F) silent on knowing; no explicit knowledge requirement	State would punish innocent conduct; need knowing mens rea	Known violation required; instruction error reversible
Whether the trial court erred by not giving a knowing-violation instruction	Gonzalez approach allows general intent where statute silent	General intent instruction insufficient to ensure deterrence and specific purpose of Act	Yes, error; remand for new trial with knowing-violation standard
Whether Section 40-13-6(D),(F) is void for vagueness absent knowing	Statute lacks mens rea but provides notice	Unclear standard leads to arbitrary enforcement	Not void for vagueness
Sufficiency of evidence under current instructions	Evidence supported guilt under general intent	No proof of knowing violation under current charge	Sufficient evidence; but relief depends on knowing-violation instruction on remand

Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358 (1993) (presumption of intent when statute silent on mens rea)
State v. Gonzalez, 137 P.3d 547 (2005-NMCA-031) (general intent where no explicit mental state in statute)
State v. Nozie, 146 N.M. 142, 207 P.3d 1119 (2009-NMSC-018) (knowledge of victim identity essential in certain crimes; supports knowledge requirement)
State v. Katrina G., 141 N.M. 501, 157 P.3d 66 (2007-NMCA-048) (knowledge of protected status required in some offenses; legislative intent)
State v. Hubble, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579 (2009-NMSC-014) (statutory interpretation of missing mens rea; common-law presumption of intent)
State v. Dowling, -- (--) ((not provided in excerpt))
State v. Smile, 146 N.M. 525, 212 P.3d 413 (2009-NMCA-064) (void for vagueness and instruction standards)