N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3-9.2
A. As used in this section:
B. Assault upon a health care worker consists of:
C. Aggravated assault upon a health care worker consists of:
(2) willfully and intentionally assaulting a health care worker who is in the lawful discharge of the health care worker's duties with intent to commit any felony.
Whoever commits aggravated assault upon a health care worker is guilty of a third degree felony.
History: Laws 2006, ch. 27, § 1.
Effective dates. — Laws 2006, ch. 27 contained no effective date provision, but, pursuant to N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23, was effective May 17, 2006, 90 days after adjournment of the legislature.
Not unconstitutionally vague. — Section 30-3-9.2 NMSA 1978 is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Tsosie, 2011-NMCA-115, 150 N.M. 754, 266 P.3d 34, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-010.
The element of knowledge of the victim’s identity as a health care worker is an essential element for the crime of battery upon a health care worker. State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 287 P.3d 372, cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-009, 296 P.3d 1207.
Knowledge of the identity of the victim is an essential element. — Where defendant was charged with battery upon a health care worker for striking a security guard at a medical center, and the trial court instructed the jury on the elements of battery upon a health care worker, but omitted the requirement that defendant had knowledge that the victim was a health care worker, the failure to instruct the jury that a conviction for battery on a health care worker required the element of knowledge that the victim was a health care worker was fundamental error. State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 287 P.3d 372, cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-009, 296 P.3d 1207.
Meaning of "health care worker". — A security guard who was employed by a medical center, who was not a medical professional, who was not employed for the purpose of providing medical care, who was not licensed in any medical field, and whose employment duties related to security, not medicine, was a "health care worker" under Section 30-3-9.2(A)(2) NMSA 1978. State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 287 P.3d 372, cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-009, 296 P.3d 1207.
Battery committed while in protective custody due to intoxication. — The Detoxification Reform Act, Sections 43-2-1.1 NMSA 1978 et seq., does not preclude the criminal prosecution of a defendant for battery upon a health care worker merely because the defendant was in protective custody due to intoxication at the time of the offense. State v. Tsosie, 2011-NMCA-115, 150 N.M. 754, 266 P.3d 34, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-010.
Health facility. — Where the victim of defendant’s battery was employed by a facility that was licensed as an adult residential health facility, provided protective custody to alcohol-impaired persons, and identified substance abuse issues based upon patients’ medical history, vital signs, laboratory testing, and formal assessments and developed treatment plans based upon those observations, which included prescribing and dispensing of medications and behavioral therapy, the facility was a "health facility" and the victim qualified as a health care worker. State v. Tsosie, 2011-NMCA-115, 150 N.M. 754, 266 P.3d 34, cert. denied, 2011-NMCERT-010.
Sufficient evidence. — Where defendant was brought to a medical center for detoxification evaluation; the medical staff determined that defendant was not free to be released and requested security guards employed by the medical center to restrain defendant until defendant’s parents arrived to pick defendant up; the security guards’ job description included restraining persons brought in for detoxification evaluation; defendant tried to leave and the security guards restrained defendant; and defendant struck one of the security guards, there was sufficient evidence that the security guard was a health care worker lawfully performing the security guard’s duties. State v. Valino, 2012-NMCA-105, 287 P.3d 372, cert. denied, 2012-NMCERT-009, 296 P.3d 1207.