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 driving with his nine-year-old child when he failed to stop at a stop sign, resulting in a crash that deployed the vehicle's airbags and caused minor injuries to the child. An officer at the scene detected alcohol on the Defendant's breath. The Defendant admitted to consuming alcohol earlier that day, and subsequent tests revealed his blood alcohol content was more than double the legal limit. He was convicted of driving while intoxicated (DWI) and child abuse by endangerment (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge.
• Certiorari Granted, August 3, 2012, No. 33,677. Released for Publication August 21, 2012.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: The Defendant argued that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support his conviction for child abuse by endangerment, contending that his accident was caused by unforeseeable brake failure rather than intoxication. He maintained that without proof of unsafe driving due to intoxication, his conviction should be reversed (para 7).
• Appellee: The State contended that the Defendant's act of driving while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle, regardless of the specific cause of the accident, was sufficient to support the conviction for child abuse by endangerment. The State argued that the mere act of driving under the influence with a child passenger inherently placed the child in danger (paras 8, 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's act of driving while intoxicated, without additional evidence of unsafe driving due to intoxication, is sufficient to support a conviction for child abuse by endangerment (para 7).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the Defendant's conviction for child abuse by endangerment and remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment to accurately reflect the specific DWI crime for which the Defendant was convicted (paras 17-18).

Reasons

• Per J. MILES HANISEE (CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge, and MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, concurring): The Court concluded that the Defendant's act of driving while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle was sufficient to support his conviction for child abuse by endangerment. The Court reasoned that driving under the influence inherently exposed the child to a substantial risk of harm, aligning with the legislative intent to protect children from significant risks even if no physical injury occurred. The Court distinguished this case from others where the danger to the child was theoretical rather than actual, emphasizing that the Defendant's actions placed the child within a moving zone of danger. The Court also noted that DWI is a strict liability crime that does not require additional evidence of unsafe driving to support a conviction, and by extension, the same principle applies to child abuse by endangerment in the context of DWI with a child passenger. The Court remanded for correction of a clerical error in the judgment regarding the specific DWI offense (paras 4-16).