STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Richard Lamar WILLIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 5785.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico.
Oct. 5, 1982.
652 P.2d 1222 | 771 N.M. 50
The fact that the ones which were used were the most convenient does not necessarily make them equally admissible. To balance the rights of the defendant between evidence which could have been secured by court order and which would not have been prejudicial (exposure of a prior conviction), and evidence which was clearly prejudicial leaves little doubt as to whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the parole officer‘s testimony and the parole records.
Greater care should be used in selecting material as exemplars.
Reversed and remanded for a new trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WALTERS, C.J., and NEAL, J., concur.
Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Carol Vigil, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellant.
John B. Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, David Stafford, Asst. Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee.
OPINION
NEAL, Judge.
This appeal has been brought by the State challenging the trial court‘s dismissal of Count II of the grand jury indictment against the defendant, Richard Lamar Willis, charging him with vehicular homicide.
The only issue in this case is whether an unborn viable fetus is a human being for purposes of the New Mexico Vehicular homicide statute,
As Judge Wood states in his specially concurring opinion: the killing of a human being for which
The question involved has been discussed in several well-documented law review articles: Criminal Law—Homicide—Fetus, 23 Vanderbilt Law Rev. at 854; Feticide in California—A Proposed Statutory Scheme, 12 Univ.Cal. Davis at 723; Feticide—The Unborn Child as a Human Being, 45 Tulane Law Review at 408; Born Alive, 1963 Crim. Law.Rev. at 748.
The early common law did not attach human status to a fetus for the purposes of protection under the homicide statutes until quickening had occurred. Quickening, or animation, usually occurs between the sixteenth and twentieth week of pregnancy. By the mid-nineteenth century, however, the common law had shifted to the “born alive” theory. This theory stated that the unborn child is not a human being and hence cannot be the victim of homicide unless it is subsequently born alive. Early cases under the rule required a complete live birth as evidenced by an independent circulation. The rule was rather ambiguous, however, since there was no recognized standard of what constituted a live birth or an independent circulation. Despite these difficulties the supposed medical criterion of an independent circulation was the favorite view in England from 1780 until the passage of the Infanticide Acts of 1922 and 1938. No authoritative view of infanticide had been adopted by the courts in the United States by the end of the nineteenth century. By the middle of the twentieth century, however, the now prevailing view requiring live birth had been established. Basically, this majority American view is an elaborate version of the old common law rule, and a flood of cases have appeared trying to determine the exact moment when live birth actually occurs. * * *
It is interesting to note and the State concedes that all jurisdictions having considered this issue have held that the homicide statutes of their respective states do not apply to a viable fetus. In its sole argument the State urges that this Court should hold that the New Mexico Legislature did intend a viable fetus to be included within the definition of human being as found in the Vehicular Homicide Statute because of its existence in the New Mexico abortion statute; that the abortion statute demonstrates the Legislature‘s compelling interest to protect the life of a fetus.
There is no doubt that this State and every other state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn child. The error that the State makes is in leaping to the conclusion that this interest makes feticide the statutory equivalent to homicide. Only the Legislature can decide to equate the two, and until they decide to do so there is no basis upon which to impose homicide sanctions for the destruction of a fetus. The Judiciary, without legislative authority, cannot expand the scope of the homicide statute to include feticide. This is true because (1) only the Legislature can substantially enlarge the scope of penal statutes, United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat) 76, 5 L.Ed. 37 (1820) and (2) such an expansion would violate defendant‘s right to be free of ex post facto enactments, since inclusion of viable fetus in the definition of human being would make defendant liable for a crime not proscribed when it occurred. Dobbert v. Florida, 432 U.S. 282, 97 S.Ct. 2290, 53 L.Ed.2d 344 (1977); Bouie v. Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964); State v. Norush, 97 N.M. 660, 642 P.2d 119 (Ct.App.1982).
The power to define crimes and to establish criminal penalties is a legislative function. State v. Pendley, 92 N.M. 658, 593 P.2d 755 (Ct.App.1979).
This is basically a question of statutory construction. In State v. Garcia, 83 N.M. 490, 493 P.2d 975 (Ct.App.1971), the court provided the following guidance:
* * * The cardinal rule in the construction of a statute is to ascertain the intention of the Legislature as it is expressed in the words of the statute, and for this purpose the whole act must be considered. The law requires that penal statutes shall be strictly construed, by which is meant that courts will not extend punishment to cases not plainly within the language used. * * *
Any ambiguity in a criminal statute is construed against the state. State v. Ortiz, 78 N.M. 507, 433 P.2d 92 (Ct.App.1967). If this standard is used, does the definition of “human being” include viable fetus? We hold that it does not.
In 1853-54, Art. 28, ch. II, § 10, the Legislature first enacted homicide statutes in
We must presume that the legislature was informed as to the existing law. Bettini v. City of Las Cruces, 82 N.M. 633, 485 P.2d 967 (1971). The Legislature had treated human beings and unborn infant children differently for over one hundred years. The repeal of the law making it a third degree felony to kill an unborn child seems to indicate that the Legislature no longer wanted this to be a crime and that the only crime against viable fetuses was to be found in the abortion statutes.
Moreover, we have reviewed case law from other jurisdictions and the cases are universally in accord with our position. Seven appellate courts since 1970 have addressed this issue. Three states have considered the matter in light of general homicide statutes. In each, the courts have held that the term “human being” did not include an unborn fetus. People v. Greer, 79 Ill.2d 103, 37 Ill.Dec. 313, 402 N.E.2d 203 (1980); State v. Brown, 378 So.2d 916 (La. 1979); Keeler v. Superior Court, 87 Cal.Rptr. 481, 2 Cal.3d 619, 470 P.2d 617 (1970). The other four states answering the issue presented in this case, is a viable fetus a human being within the meaning of a vehicular homicide statute, held that the term “human being” or “person” did not include a viable fetus. State In the Interest of A.W.S., 182 N.J.Super. 278, 440 A.2d 1144 (1981); People v. Guthrie, 97 Mich.App. 226, 293 N.W.2d 775 (1980); State v. Larsen, 578 P.2d 1280 (Utah 1978); State v. Dickinson, 28 Ohio St.2d 65, 275 N.E.2d 599 (1971).
The decision of the trial court is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
WOOD, Judge (specially concurring).
Donnelly, J., concurs.
Defendant was charged with killing the “unborn viable baby boy of Stella Benavidez” in the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle either by driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or by reckless driving.
The question of legislative intent arises because “human being” is not defined in the Motor Vehicle Code, of which
The killing of a human being for which
The common law of crimes applies except where the common law has been changed by statute. Territory v. Montoya, 17 N.M. 122, 125 P. 622 (1912). See
Inasmuch as the Motor Vehicle Code shows no legislative intent to change the common-law definition of human being, we look to the Criminal Code and the legislative history of that Code.
New Mexico departed from the common law when, by Laws 1853-54, art. 28, ch. III, § 10, it provided:
Sec. 10. The willful killing of an unborn infant child, by any injury to the mother of such child, which would be murder if it resulted in the death of such mother, shall be deemed murder in the third degree.
Defendant points out that this legislative treatment of the killing of an unborn infant child as murder was only a third degree felony. “Where the killing was of a ‘human being‘, the otherwise identical facts could support a first degree murder conviction.” Defendant is asserting that the Legislature distinguished between the killing of a human being and the killing of an unborn infant child, and this distinction applies between a human being and a viable fetus. This argument overlooks how the killing of a human being was defined; Section 1 of the above-cited 1853-54 legislation defined the killing of a human being as murder.
Defining the killing of a human being as first degree murder and defining the killing of an unborn infant child as third degree murder does not show a legislative intent that an unborn infant child was not to be considered a human being. Both of these “murder” provisions were included in a chapter of legislation dealing with offenses against “Lives and Persons.” See Salazar v. St. Vincent Hospital, supra.
Defendant asserts: “In 1907, the term murder was removed from the statute proscribing the destruction of a viable fetus, although the crime remained a felony.” This is incorrect. Laws 1907, ch. 36, § 5 is substantially identical to the above-quoted 1853-54 law, except the crime was raised to “murder in the second degree.”
The question of legislative intent in this case differs from the legislative intent question in Salazar v. St. Vincent Hospital, supra. In Salazar we were concerned with the meaning of “person” in the 1882 wrongful death statute; the 1853-54 statute dealing with offenses against lives and persons indicated a legislative understanding that a viable fetus was a person. Here we are concerned with the meaning of “human being“. See State v. Brown, supra.
The 1853-54 statute is ambiguous; although the statutes defined the killing of a human being as murder and defined the killing of an unborn infant child as murder, there was no general definition of murder. Thus an ambiguity existed as to whether “human being” included “unborn infant child“. This ambiguity continued until 1891.
The approach, that the killing of an unborn infant child was murder, begun in 1853-54, continued in the 1907 law, and was not changed until repealed by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 30-1.
The approach, that the killing of a human being was murder, begun in 1853-54, was continued in C.L. 1865, ch. LI, § 1, C.L. 1884, § 687, and a similar 1887 law, Laws 1887, ch. XXIX, § 1. A change occurred in 1891. Laws 1891, ch. 80, § 1, added a general definition of murder—murder was the unlawful killing of a human being. This
Thus, immediately prior to enactment of the Criminal Code by Laws 1963, ch. 303, see
An aid in determining legislative intent in enacting the Criminal Code is the Committee Report (Report of Criminal Law Study Interim Committee, 1961-62). The Criminal Code, consistent with the Committee Report, continued to define murder as the killing of a human being. See
The State contends that these criminal abortion statutes authorize us to hold that the killing of a viable fetus is the killing of a human being. This is incorrect. Neither the abortion statute which replaced the provision that the killing of the fetus was murder,
There being no statutory provision showing a legislative intent to include a viable fetus within the meaning of “human being” for the purposes of the criminal law, the common-law meaning of “human being” applies. The trial court properly dismissed the charge.