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, Sarah Burton-Hepple, and her husband, Matthew Hepple, were convicted of two counts of first-degree kidnapping, one count of conspiracy to commit kidnapping, and one count of conspiracy to commit child abuse. The case involves the alleged kidnapping and abuse of their own children.

Procedural History

• State v. Matthew Hepple, No. 30,115, slip op. at 2-6 (N.M. Ct. App. March 17, 2013): The facts and background in Sarah Burton-Hepple's case are identical to those set forth in her husband’s appeal.

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Challenged the jury instructions, the qualification of an expert witness on forensic pediatrics, the district court’s denial of her motion for a continuance, the sufficiency of the evidence on the kidnapping-related charges, and argued that some of her convictions violated double jeopardy protections.
• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued in favor of the trial court's decisions on the jury instructions, expert witness qualification, denial of continuance, sufficiency of evidence, and against the double jeopardy claim.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motions for a continuance.
• Whether the district court erred in allowing expert testimony from a forensic physician not trained as a forensic pathologist.
• Whether the State failed to prove the required elements of kidnapping, specifically the unlawfulness element.
• Whether some of the Defendant's convictions violated double jeopardy protections.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the Defendant's convictions for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping.
• The court reversed the Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit intentional child abuse and remanded to the district court for dismissal of that conviction.

Reasons

• The court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Defendant's motions for a continuance as the Defendant could not demonstrate how the requested transcript was material and favorable to her defense (paras 3-6). Regarding the expert testimony, the court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Dr. Campbell, as her qualifications and the relevance of her testimony were sufficient under Rule 11-702 NMRA (paras 7-8). On the kidnapping charges, the court rejected the Defendant's arguments, affirming that a parent can be found guilty of kidnapping their own child if the conduct is excessive or cruel and not a lawful exercise of parental discipline (paras 9-11). Lastly, the court agreed with the State's concession that the Defendant's conviction for conspiracy to commit intentional child abuse violated double jeopardy protections, leading to the reversal of that conviction (paras 13-14).