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, while intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of .15 and under the influence of marijuana and cocaine, drove a vehicle with his girlfriend and four children as passengers. At an intersection, his vehicle collided with a speeding truck, resulting in the deaths of all passengers except the Defendant. The truck driver was also intoxicated with a blood alcohol level of .23 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Socorro County: The Defendant was convicted of five counts of vehicular homicide, four counts of child abuse resulting in death, driving while intoxicated (DWI), and other related offenses.
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the convictions for vehicular homicide and child abuse resulting in death violated the prohibition against double jeopardy, as the same conduct was used to establish both offenses. Additionally, the Defendant challenged the sentence for vehicular homicide, the merger of the DWI conviction, jury instructions on reckless driving and causation, and the change of venue (paras 1, 3, 14, 15, 23).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the conduct underlying the vehicular homicide and child abuse charges was distinguishable, asserting that the child abuse occurred when the Defendant allowed the children to enter the vehicle, creating a dangerous situation prior to the crash (para 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the convictions for vehicular homicide and child abuse resulting in death violate the prohibition against double jeopardy?
- Was the Defendant’s sentence for vehicular homicide appropriate?
- Should the DWI conviction have merged with the vehicular homicide charges?
- Were the jury instructions on reckless driving and causation proper?
- Did the trial court err in changing the venue?
- Was the Defendant’s counsel ineffective for failing to request a second change of venue?
Disposition
- The vehicular homicide convictions were affirmed (para 27).
- The convictions for child abuse resulting in death and DWI were vacated due to double jeopardy and merger issues (para 27).
- The case was remanded for resentencing under the remaining convictions (para 27).
Reasons
Per Rudy S. Apodaca J. (Bustamante J. concurring):
Double Jeopardy: The court found that the conduct underlying the vehicular homicide and child abuse charges was unitary, as both were based on the Defendant’s act of driving while intoxicated. The Legislature did not intend for multiple punishments for a single death, and the child abuse convictions were vacated under the general-specific rule, as the vehicular homicide statute was deemed the more specific statute governing the conduct (paras 5-13).
Sentence for Vehicular Homicide: The court upheld the six-year basic sentence for vehicular homicide, consistent with prior case law (para 14).
Merger of DWI Conviction: The DWI conviction was vacated as it was a lesser-included offense of vehicular homicide, and merging only the sentence would not suffice to prevent double jeopardy (para 15).
Jury Instructions on Reckless Driving: The court found no reversible error in the jury instructions, as they were consistent and did not prejudice the Defendant (paras 16-18).
Change of Venue: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in changing the venue to another county within the same judicial district. The voir dire process ensured an impartial jury, and there was no basis for a second motion for a change of venue (paras 19-22).
Jury Instruction on Causation: The Defendant’s objections to the causation instruction were not preserved for appeal. The instruction given was consistent with established law, and the Defendant’s concerns about foreseeability and burden-shifting were not raised at trial (paras 23-26).
Special Concurrence by A. Joseph Alarid J.:
Judge Alarid concurred with the majority but expressed reservations about the application of the general-specific rule. He suggested that the child abuse and vehicular homicide statutes could be viewed as equally specific, depending on whether the focus is on the instrumentality of the crime or the class of victims. He called for clarification from the Supreme Court or Legislature on this issue (paras 29-30).