AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 was arrested for driving under the influence and taken to a detention facility. Upon arrival, he was asked if he possessed any contraband, to which he denied. A subsequent search revealed a small bag of marijuana in his pocket. The Defendant was charged with bringing contraband into a jail, despite being brought into the facility involuntarily by law enforcement (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 29, 2005: The court dismissed the charge of bringing contraband into jail, finding that the Defendant's entry into the jail was involuntary and that the statute did not impose strict liability. The court also held that the Defendant could not be penalized for refusing to incriminate himself (paras 5-6).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State): Argued that the crime of bringing contraband into jail is a possessory offense requiring only proof that the Defendant knowingly possessed the contraband when entering the jail. The State contended that voluntariness of entry was not a required element under the statute (paras 4, 6).
• Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the actus reus element of the offense was not met because he did not voluntarily enter the jail. He argued that the statute does not impose strict liability and that he could not be forced to incriminate himself by admitting possession of contraband (paras 3, 5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the crime of bringing contraband into a jail requires the Defendant to have voluntarily entered the facility.
• Whether the Defendant can be held liable for bringing contraband into a jail when he was brought there involuntarily by law enforcement.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the charge of bringing contraband into jail (para 12).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):

The Court held that the crime of bringing contraband into a jail under NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-14(B), requires a voluntary act. The Defendant's entry into the jail was involuntary as he was brought there under arrest by law enforcement. The Court agreed with the reasoning in similar cases, such as State v. Tippetts and State v. Sowry, which emphasized that criminal liability requires a voluntary act. The Court rejected the State's argument that mere knowledge of possession was sufficient, finding that the Defendant could not be held liable for an act he did not voluntarily commit. The Court also noted that the Defendant could not be compelled to incriminate himself by admitting possession of contraband during booking (paras 7-11).