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

A child (the Appellant) was adjudicated delinquent for violating NMSA 1978, § 30-20-12(A), which prohibits using a telephone to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy, or offend another. The incident involved a three-way telephone call initiated by a friend, during which the Appellant allegedly threatened another individual, who was pregnant at the time, with harm to her and her baby. The Appellant denied making the threats, while the recipient of the call testified that she felt threatened and harassed (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Children's Court of Lea County: The court adjudicated the Appellant delinquent for violating NMSA 1978, § 30-20-12(A).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove she "telephoned another" as required by the statute, given that the three-way call was physically initiated by her friend. She also contended that she lacked the specific intent to harass or threaten and that the recipient of the call did not genuinely feel threatened (paras 6, 11, and 15).
• Appellee (State): Asserted that the Appellant's participation in the call and her threatening statements were sufficient to meet the statutory requirements. The State argued that the evidence demonstrated the Appellant's intent to harass and threaten the recipient (paras 6-7, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellant's actions constituted "telephoning another" under NMSA 1978, § 30-20-12(A) when the three-way call was physically initiated by a third party.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the Appellant's specific intent to harass or threaten the recipient.
• Whether the evidence supported the finding that the recipient felt threatened or harassed (paras 6, 11, and 15).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Children's Court's adjudication of delinquency (para 16).

Reasons

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

• The court interpreted NMSA 1978, § 30-20-12(A) to include situations where a person participates in a call initiated by another, provided the person has the requisite intent and engages in prohibited conduct during the call. The Appellant's actions, including her participation in the call and her knowledge that the call was being connected, were sufficient to meet the statutory requirement of "telephoning another" (paras 6-10).
• The court found that the Appellant's alleged threats to harm the recipient and her baby constituted prima facie evidence of the specific intent to harass or threaten, as provided under the statute. The recipient's testimony about feeling threatened and harassed further supported this finding (paras 12-13).
• The court rejected the Appellant's argument that the recipient's admission of not being scared negated the evidence of harassment. The recipient's testimony that she felt threatened and harassed was deemed substantial evidence supporting the Children's Court's findings (para 15).