This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
Law enforcement conducted a welfare check at the Defendant's apartment after a neighbor reported loud noises. Upon entry, officers found three young children unattended while the Defendant and another adult were passed out, heavily intoxicated, with empty alcohol bottles present. The children were taken into custody by their grandmother, and the Defendant and the children's mother were arrested for child abuse (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- State v. Yazzie, A-1-CA-34537: The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's conviction, holding that the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to suppress (para 5).
- State v. Yazzie, 2019-NMSC-008: The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals, holding that the district court properly denied the motion to suppress and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 5).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the plea to "attempt to commit negligent child abuse" was invalid as it constituted a plea to a nonexistent crime, raising a jurisdictional issue that could be challenged on appeal (paras 7, 13-16).
- Plaintiff-Respondent: Asserted that the case was moot due to the Defendant's death and that the plea agreement barred consideration of the challenge to the validity of the plea (paras 10, 13).
Legal Issues
- Whether the attempt to cause or permit reckless child abuse is a crime under New Mexico law (para 1).
- Whether a person can plead guilty or no contest to a nonexistent crime (para 1).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico vacated the Defendant's conviction and remanded the case to the district court for dismissal (para 38).
Reasons
Per Zamora J. (Thomson C.J., Vigil, Bacon, and Vargas JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the issue was not moot as it raised a question of substantial public interest, specifically regarding the separation of powers and the jurisdictional validity of a plea to a nonexistent crime (paras 10-12). The Court held that a plea to a nonexistent crime constitutes a nonwaivable jurisdictional error that can be raised for the first time on appeal (paras 13-16). The Court concluded that "attempt to cause or permit reckless child abuse" is a nonexistent crime because reckless child abuse is a general intent crime, lacking the specific intent required for an attempt charge (paras 17-32). The Court rejected the State's argument that the mens rea for reckless child abuse involves specific intent, affirming that it is determined objectively (paras 33-37).