This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant, who shared joint legal custody of his children with his ex-wife, took three of their children to Arizona without returning them for 16 days. This occurred after a series of disputes with his ex-wife, including his disabling of her vehicle to prevent pursuit. The Defendant claimed he acted to protect the children and sought to reunite the family in Arizona (paras 2-7).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: The Defendant was convicted of custodial interference and injuring or tampering with a vehicle. He was acquitted of unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and larceny (para 11).
- Court of Appeals: Affirmed the Defendant's convictions, holding that the jury instructions adequately defined "good cause" and that defining "protracted period of time" was unnecessary (para 11).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant: Argued that the jury instruction on "good cause" was erroneous for failing to include the concept of good faith and that the trial court erred in refusing to define "protracted period of time" for the jury (paras 8-9, 23).
- State: Contended that the "good cause" instruction was proper and that the phrase "protracted period of time" was self-explanatory, requiring no further definition (paras 9, 24).
Legal Issues
- Whether the jury instruction defining "good cause" was erroneous for failing to include the concept of good faith (para 1).
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to define "protracted period of time" for the jury (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the Defendant's conviction for custodial interference (para 27).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Bosson C.J., Minzner, Serna, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Good Cause Instruction:
The Court held that the jury instruction on "good cause" was erroneous because it failed to include the concept of good faith, which is a necessary component of custodial interference under New Mexico law. However, the error was not reversible because the jury found the Defendant guilty of both "taking" and "failing to return" interference, and the "good cause" requirement only applies to the latter. The jury instructions, when considered as a whole, did not mislead or confuse the jury regarding the "taking" interference (paras 12-22).
Protracted Period of Time Instruction:
The Court found no error in the trial court's refusal to define "protracted period of time" for the jury. The phrase is self-explanatory and has a common meaning, making further definition unnecessary. Additionally, the Defendant was able to argue his interpretation of the phrase during closing arguments, ensuring the jury could consider his perspective (paras 23-26).