State v. Tsosie
150 N.M. 754
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Tsosie was charged with battery upon a health care worker after an incident at Four Winds Recovery Center's Protective Care Unit (PCU) in Farmington.
- The district court denied Tsosie’s motion to dismiss, finding Four Winds and the PCU to be a health facility and Albo to be a health care worker on duty at the time of the alleged battery.
- Tsosie pleaded guilty conditioned on appeal of the denial of the motion to dismiss; issues center on the DRA’s preclusion, Albo’s status, and vagueness of the battery statute.
- Four Winds PCU is licensed as an adult residential facility and provides detoxification and protective custody services within the overall Four Winds complex.
- The court held the DRA does not preclude prosecution, Albo qualifies as a health care worker, and the battery statute is not vague or overbroad.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the DRA preclude battery-on-health-care-worker prosecution? | Tsosie: DRA immunizes intoxicated individuals from prosecution; DRA controls over battery statute. | Tsosie: DRA overrides broader battery statute when intoxicated during the offense. | DRA does not preclude prosecution |
| Is Albo a health care worker employed by a health facility under 30-3-9.2(A)(1)-(2)? | State: Albo was an employee at Four Winds PCU and engaged in health-care duties. | Tsosie: PCU not a health facility, so Albo not a health care worker under the statute. | Albo qualifies; PCU is a health facility under the statute |
| Are 30-3-9.2(A) and (E) unconstitutionally vague or overbroad? | State: Provisions provide fair notice and are not vague when applied to PCU context. | Tsosie: Statute too vague to warn about battery of PCU employees. | Not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Correa, 147 N.M. 291, 222 P.3d 1 (2009-NMSC-051) (DRA does not preclude criminal liability; offenses while intoxicated remain punishable)
- State v. Johnson, 147 N.M. 177, 218 P.3d 863 (2009-NMSC-049) (purely legal question; defines statutory interpretation approach)
- State v. Cleve, 127 N.M. 240, 980 P.2d 23 (1999-NMSC-017) (more specific statute controls when harmonizable)
- State v. Padilla, 143 N.M. 310, 176 P.3d 299 (2008-NMSC-006) (statutory construction principles; ordinary meanings when undefined)
- State v. Castillo, 149 N.M. 536, 252 P.3d 760 (2011-NMCA-046) (vagueness analysis requires discernible legislative intent)