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 case arose from a domestic dispute during which the Defendant allegedly engaged in violent and threatening behavior toward the victim. The victim testified that the Defendant threatened her life if she called the police and made additional threats regarding her job. The Defendant disputed the victim's account, claiming she fabricated or exaggerated the events. The Defendant was charged with multiple felonies and misdemeanors, including intimidating a witness, criminal sexual contact, and other violent offenses (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The Defendant was convicted of felony intimidation of a witness and misdemeanor criminal sexual contact. He was acquitted of other felony and misdemeanor charges, including criminal sexual penetration, false imprisonment, and aggravated assault. The trial court denied the Defendant's motion to vacate the conviction or for a new trial (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the jury instructions on intimidating a witness were fundamentally flawed, the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutionally vague, and the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction (para 1).
- Plaintiff-Appellee: Contended that the jury instructions were adequate, the statute was constitutional, and the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.
Legal Issues
- Was there fundamental error in the jury instructions on the charge of intimidating a witness?
- Is Section 30-24-3(A)(3) of the New Mexico Statutes unconstitutionally vague?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for intimidating a witness?
Disposition
- The conviction for intimidating a witness was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial due to fundamental error in the jury instructions (para 17).
- The constitutionality of Section 30-24-3(A)(3) was upheld (para 24).
- The sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction was affirmed (para 26).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Alarid and Bosson JJ. concurring):
Jury Instructions: The Court found that the jury instructions failed to specify which actions constituted the "commission or possible commission of a felony," a necessary element of the offense under Section 30-24-3(A)(3). This omission allowed the jury to convict the Defendant without determining whether the actions related to a felony, constituting fundamental error. The Court suggested a revised instruction to address this issue on remand (paras 11-16).
Constitutionality of the Statute: The Court rejected the Defendant's argument that Section 30-24-3(A)(3) was unconstitutionally vague. It held that the statute clearly applied to the Defendant's conduct, which involved threats to prevent the victim from reporting violent acts to law enforcement. The Court emphasized that a person of ordinary intelligence would understand the statute's prohibitions (paras 21-24).
Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Court determined that the victim's testimony, which included threats made by the Defendant to kill her if she called the police, provided sufficient evidence to support the conviction for intimidating a witness. The Court noted that it does not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility on appeal (paras 25-26).