1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: May

25, 201 6 4 N O. 34, 303 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 J A M E S J O S E P H R

A M I R E Z, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF OTER O C OUN TY 11 Je rr y H . R it te r, Jr . , D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Santa Fe , N M 14 Jane A. Ber

nstein, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 15 Albuquerque, N M 16 for Appellee 17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 J.K . T heodos ia Johns on, A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 Santa Fe , N M 20 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VA NZ I, Jud ge. 3 { 1} A j ur

y f ound D ef en dant J am es Jos ep h Ram ir ez gui lty of se ve ra l c ri m es a ri sin g 4 fr om ahom e inv as ionw he re ac hil d vi ct im w as hom e alone
. D ef

en dant a sse rt s on 5 ap p e a l t h a t( 1 ) mu l t i p l e p u n i s h men t s v i o l a t e h i s r i g h t t o b e f r e e f r o m d o ub l e je o p a r d y, 6 (2 ) the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort hi s c onvi ct ionf or c hil d e ndange rm en t, 7 an d ( 3) the r es tr ai nt u se d to c onvi ct him of kidna ppi ng w as inc ide nta l t o th e 8 co m m iss ionof

a nothe r cr im e. W e af

fi rm in al l r es pe ct s. 9 BACKGRO UND 10 { 2} T he fa ct s ar e not in dis put e. V ic tim w as a ch ild —f if te en at the t im e o f the 1 1 inc ide nt—

w h o w a s h o m e a l o n e o n e n i g h tw h i l e h i s o l d e r b r o t h e r s w o rk e da n dh is 12 pare nts a tte nde d aCh ri stm as party . H e he ar d a knock at the doo r an d answ er ed

to fi nd 13 a m anw eari ng a hood ed sw eatsh irt w iththe hoo d pu lle d lo wove r his e y es . T he 14 ide nti ty

of the hoo de d m anw oul d l at er be the onl y r ea l c onc er

n a t tri al , but

f or our 15 pu rp os es on ap pe al , itis un co nt es te d t ha t h e was Defen da nt . 16 { 3} D ef

en dant a ske d if

V ic tim ’ s pare nts w er e hom e. V ic tim , w ho w as natu ral ly 17 sus pic iou s, li ed an d r es pond ed that the y w er e. D ef

en dant the n a tte m

pte d to f or ce his 18 w ay ins ide , an d the V ic tim

a tte m pte d to blo ck

the doo rw ay

unt il D ef en dant p ull ed

a 19 rev ol ve r fro m

hi s wai st , pro m

pt in g Vi ct im

to ret reat in to th e h ou se .2

1 { 4} V ic tim

r anto the li vin g r oom , re al iz ed his m oth er ha d bl oc ke d th e ba ck doo r 2 with laundry , so he stopp ed and got on his knees. De fendant, who had f o l l o we d 3 V i c t i m i n s i d e , p i c k e d h i m up b y h i s s h i rt a n dp o i n t e dt h e g u n up a n dd o w n h i s b o d y. 4 H e or de re d V ic tim

to loc k th e door

a nd the n a sked if “ Aly ssa ” w as hom e. V ic tim 5 responded th at he did not k now any one b y that nam e. De fendant then followed 6 V ic tim f ro m r oom to ro om , f

or ci ng h im

a t gunpoi nt to op ene ac h do or so D ef en dant 7 could lo ok ins ide. H aving apparently concluded that there w as, in f act, no “ Aly ssa” 8 atth e res id en ce, Defe nd an t re m ark ed , “ sh it , wron g h ou se ,” an d l eft
. 9 DISC US SION 10 Suf ficienc y of the Evidenc e 11 { 5} Thi s is a do ub le jeop ard y cas e atit s co re, b ut we wil l b eg in by dis po si ng of t wo 12 curs or y a rg um en ts tha t ( 1) the re is ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

c hil d e ndange rm en t 13 be ca use the S ta te did not pr ove D ef en dant k ne wV ic tim

w as ac hil d, a nd ( 2) the 14 re str ai nt u se d to kidna p V ic tim w as inc ide nta l to De fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ionf or c hil d 15 endangerm ent. When the sufficiency o f the evidence is challenged, “ we m ust view 16 the eviden ce i n the ligh t m ost favorable to the convictio n.” Sta te v . W ade , 198 3- 17 N MC A -0 84, ¶

11, 100 N
. M. 152 , 667 P
. 2d 4 59. 18 { 6} T o be c onvi ct ed of c hil d e ndange rm en t unde r N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 30 -6
- 19 1( D )( 1) ( 2009 ), a de fe ndant m ust ac t “ w ith re ck le ss dis re gard in re la tio n to the sa fe ty3

1 or health of [a child] spec i fically .” State v. G onza les , 201 1- N MC A -0 81, ¶ 25, 150 2 N
. M. 494 , 263 P
. 3d 2 71. T he standard is not e nti re ly c le ar ; bu t e ve n a ssu m ing —f or 3 the pur pose s of this ar gum en t—tha t the St at e w as r eq uir ed to pr ove that D ef

en dant 4 w as sub

j ec tiv el y a w ar e tha t V ic tim

w as ac hil d, the e vid en ce is st il l su ff ic ie nt t o 5 supp ort the c onvi ct ion
. 6 {7 } V ic tim

w as f if te en y e a r s o l d w h e n D e f e n d a n t kn o c k e d a this doo r an d 7 se ve nte enw he n he te sti fi ed be fo re the j ur

y . H e te sti fi ed tha t D ef

en dant’ s im

m ed ia te 8 que sti on wh en the tw o m et fa ce -t o- fa ce w as “ ar e y our pare nts hom e?” T ha t alo ne is 9 suf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or the j ur y to inf er D ef en dant’ s aw ar en es s th at t he pe rs on h e 10 wou ld lat er h ol d a t g un po in t was a ch il d. See Sta te v . G raha m , 200 5- N MS C- 004, 1 1 ¶ 13 , 1 3 7 N
. M
. 1 9 7 , 1 0 9 P
. 3 d 2 8 5 ( s t a t i n g t h a t t h e ap p e l l a t e c o u rt s “ v ie w the 1 2 ev i d en ce as a w h o l e a n d i n du l g e a l l re as o n ab l e i n fe re n ce s i n fa v o r o f t h e ju ry’s 13 ve rd ic t” ); State v. M

onto ya , 196 6- N MS C- 224, ¶

10, 77 N .M. 129, 419 P
. 2d 9 70 14 (“ K now le dge , lik e int en t, is p er sona l i n it s na tur e an d m ay not be sus ce pti ble of

pr oof 15 by dir ec t e vid en ce . It m ay , how ev er , be inf er re d f ro m oc curr en ce s and 16 circum stances.”)
. 17 { 8} D ef

en dant n ex t a dm its —so m ewha t parad oxica lly —tha t he c om

m itt ed c hil d 18 en dange rm en t bu t a sse rt s th at w e m ust va cate his co nvi ct ionf

or kidna ppi ng b ec au se 19 the L eg isl at

ur e did not int en d ki dna

ppi ng to be pr ed ic at ed

on r es tr ai nt i nc ide nta l t o4

1 the offense he com

m itted. D efendant chara cterize s this as an issu e o f st atutory 2 in te rp ret at io n, fo r whi ch ou r rev ie w is de no vo . Se e Sta te v . T ruj ill o , 20 12 -NMCA3 112, ¶ 7, 289 P.3d 238 (“ Whether th e Le g i s l at ure intended restraint during an 4 aggravated battery

to be charged as kidnappin g is a questio n of statutory 5 i n t e rp ret at io n.” ), cert. quas hed , 2 01 5- N M C E R T
- 00 3, 3 46 P
. 3d 1 16 3. B ut

e ven 6 as sum ing that D ef

en dant’ s in te rp re ta tio n of the statut es a t i ssu e is c or re ct an d th at

the 7 li m it at io ns on ki dn ap pi ng in T r u j i l lo (whic h w as a n a ggr av at ed ba tte ry c as e) sim ilarl y 8 ap ply in a chi l dab u s e c a s e , t h e t e s t i m o n y , a s am a t t e r o f f a c t , d o e s n o ts up p o rtt he 9 n o t i o n t h atVict im ’s res tra in t was in ci de nt al to ch il d e nd an ge rm en t. Se e id. ¶ 6 10 (v ie w ing the f

ac ts “ in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the c onvi ct ion ”) ; see also Sta te v. 11 So te lo , 2 0 1 3
- N M C A
- 0 2 8 , ¶ ¶ 2 9
- 3 0 , 2 9 6 P
. 3 d 1 2 3 2 ( ap p l y i n g a s u f f i c i e n c y of the 12 ev ide nc e standard to the que sti on of w he the r re str ai nt is inc ide nta l to a se parate 13 cri m e). 14 { 9} In Tr uji llo , w e h el d th at th e re str ai nt n ee de d to e ff ec t a m inu te s- lon g 15 battery— “ a m om entary grab in the m iddle of a fight”—was not conduct that was 1 6 co n t e m

p l a t e d b y t h e k i d n ap p i n g s t a tu t e b e c au s e i t w a s “ m e r e l y i n c i d e n t a l ” t o th e 17 ba tte ry . 201 2- N MC A -1 12, ¶ ¶ 6, 8. I n Tr uji llo , w e ide nti fi ed thr ee te sts e m plo y ed in 18 oth er j ur isd ic tio ns t o de te rm ine w he the r re str ai nt i s in ci de nta l to anothe r of fe nse but 19 ult im at el y

c onc lud ed

that “ the ove rarchi ng qu es tio n . . . is w he the r the r es tr ai nt o r5

1 m ove m en t i nc re as es the c ulp ab ili ty of the de fe ndant ove r an d a bove his c ulp ab ili ty 2 for the other cr im e. ” Id

. ¶ 6. 3 { 10} Victim

testified that he ran to the living room and stopp ed and got on his knees 4 before D efendant entere d, and that D efendant picked him up by his shi rt and pointed 5 the gun u p and down his b ody . T he State argued to the ju ry t h at this particular 6 co nduc t w as the ba sis f or the ch ild en dange rm en t charg e. D ef en dant the n, a cc or din g 7 to V ic tim ’ s tes tim ony , or de re d V ic tim to loc k th e door

a nd f or ce d hi m a t gunpoi nt t o 8 as sis t i n af

uti le r oom -t o- ro om

se ar chf or a n in div idu al not pr es en t in th e hom e. T his 9 se ar ch , “ w ith[ the ] gunpr es se d to the ba ck of [ V ic tim ’ s] he ad , ” w as the f ac tua l ba sis 10 in the State’ s closing argum ent for the kidnappin g charge. 11 { 11} W e co nc lud e tha t the pr olo nge d se ar chf or “ A ly ssa , ” in w hic h V ic tim w as he ld 12 to s er vic e to ope n e ac h do or

in the hom e, tur

n one ac h li ght , a nd a llo wD ef en dant t o 13 ex pl or e each em

pty r oom , inc re as ed

D ef en dant’ s c ulp ab ili ty

ove r an d a

bove his 14 culpabilit y

in endangering Victim

by point ing th e gun at him

in t h e fi rst instance. 15 T hus, the re str ai nt in thi s ca se is not inc ide nta l to ch ild en dange rm en t u nd er t he 16 standard s e nunc ia te d in Tr uji llo
. W e af fi rm D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or kidna ppi ng. 17 Doub le Jeopardy 18 { 12} De fendant argues that his conv ictions for aggravated burgl ary and aggravated 19 as sault

( both w ithade ad ly weap on) are sub sum ed int o hi s c onvi ct ionf

or c hil d6

1 endangerm ent. I n the event his other argum ents are unsuccessful, D efendant argues 2 tha t burg lary

w as im pr ope rl y a ggr av at ed

be ca use the sa m e fi re ar

m w as use d to 3 supp ort hi s c on vi ctionf or a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult
. T he se c ont en tio ns a ll inv oke 4 c o n s t i tu t i o n a l p r o t e c t i o n s a g a i n s td o ub l e je o p a r d y. 5 { 13} T he r igh t t o be f re e fr om double j eo pardy

pr ote ct s a ga ins t bo th s uc ce ssi ve 6 pr os ecu ti on s an d m

ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts forth e sa m e o ffen se . Sw aff ord v. Sta te , 199 1- 7 N MS C
- 0 4 3 , ¶

6 , 1 1 2 N
. M
. 3 , 8 1 0 P
. 2 d1 2 2 3
. T h e r e a r e t w o t y p e s o f m u l t i ple 8 puni shm ent cases: (1) unit of prosecution cases, in which an indi vidu al is convicted 9 of m ult ipl e vio la tio ns o f the sa m e cr im ina l st at ute ; and ( 2) double -d es cr ipt ionc as es , 10 in whi ch a si ng le act res ul ts in m ul ti pl e co nv ic ti on s u nd er d iff eren t s ta tu te s. Id

. ¶¶ 8- 11 9. D ef en dant’ s ar gum en ts, inv olv ing se parate sta tut es , ra ise onl y double -d es cr ipt ion 12 co nc ern s. 13 { 14} Our co ur ts ap pl y a two -s te p in qu iry to do ub le -d es cri pt i o n c l a im s. Id

. ¶ 25. 14 First, we analy ze the factual questio n, “ whether the conduct un derly ing th e offe nses 15 is unitary, i .e . , whet he r th e sa m e co nd uc t v io la te s b ot h s ta tu te s[ ,] ” an d i f so , we 16 co nsi de r the le ga l qu es tio n, “ w he the r the [L ] eg isl at ur e int en de d to c re at e se parate ly 17 puni shable offenses.” Id

. “ If it r easonably

can be said that the conduct is unitary , then 18 [the appe llate c ourts] m ust m ove to the se co nd p ar t of the inquir

y . O the rw ise , if

the 19 conduct is s eparate and distin ct, [the] inqui ry is at an end.” Id

. ¶ 28.7

1 A. Aggravated Bu rglary and Ch ild End angerm ent 2 { 15} De fendant first ar gues that he c annot be puni shed f or both aggravated burglary 3 (w ith a de ad l y we ap on) and child end angerm ent. T hat argum ent fails the unitary 4 co nduc t po rt ionof

the a na ly sis
. “ [W ] e w ill f ind tha t cond

uc t i s no t un itary

w he n th e 5 illegal acts are separated by sufficient indicia of disti nctness.” Sta te v . M ora , 200 3- 6 N MC A -0 72, ¶

18, 133 N
. M. 746 , 69 P
. 3d 2 56 ( int er na l quota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 7 om itted). R elev an t considerations include the qualit y and nature of the individ ual 8 acts, their objec tives and results, and their s ep ar at ion in tim e or phy sical distance. 9 Id

. As a general r ul e, co n d u ct is not un itary when there is “ an identifiable poin t at 10 which one of the char ged crim es ha[s] b ee n co m p leted and the other not y et 11 com m itted.” Sta te v . D eG raf

f , 200 6- N MS C- 011, ¶

27, 139 N
. M. 211 , 131 P
. 3d 6 1. 12 { 16} T he j ur

y w as ins tr uc te d to c onvi ct D ef

en dant of ag gr av at ed bur glary if it f ound 13 that he “ entered a dwelling without authorization” and “ with the intent to comm it an 14 ag gr av at ed

a ssa ult onc e ins ide ” w hil e “ arm ed w ithahandgun. ” T he of fe nse of 15 bu rg la ry is co m

pl et e up on un au th or iz eden try with th e req ui si te in te nt . State v. O ffice 16 of P ub. D ef

. e x re l. M uqqd din , 2 0 1 2
- N M S C
- 0 2 9 , ¶ 4 1 , 2 8 5 P
. 3 d6 2 2
. “ A c c o r d i n g l y, 17 the c ri m e of

a ggr av at ed bu rg lary

w as c om

ple te d a s so on a s D ef

en dant, w iththe 18 req ui si te in te nt , gai ne d e nt ry to Vict im ’s [ho m e] whil e arm edwit h a [ha nd gu n].” 19 State v. M

onto ya , 20 11 -NMCA- 07 4, ¶ 3 4, 1 50 N.M. 41 5, 2 59 P.3d 82 0.8

1 { 17} The S tate’ s theory for child endangerm ent, e vident in its closin g argum ent, w as 2 tha t D ef

en dant “ fo rc [e d hi s] w ay into a ch ild ’ s ho m e” a nd “pla c[ ed ] agunto [h is] 3 he ad , sho w ing
. . . a ct ive dis re gard f or th at ch ild’ s he al th. ” Be ca use the c ri m e of 4 aggravated burglary wa s com plete upon entry and before De fendan t endangered 5 V ic tim by poi nti ng the gu n to his he ad , the c ondu ct is not uni tary , a nd m

ult ipl e 6 pu ni sh m en ts are au th or iz ed
. Se e, e . g. , Sta te v . B ernal , 2006 -N MS C- 050, ¶ 11, 140 7 N
. M. 644 , 146 P
. 3d 2 89; D eG raf f , 200 6- N MS C- 011, ¶

27; se e als o Sw aff

ord , 199 1- 8 NMS C-043, ¶ 28 (“ [I] f the conduct is separate and distinct, [the] inqui ry is at an 9 end.”)
. 10 B. Aggravated A ssault and C hild En dangerm ent 11 { 18} De fendant next argues t hat his convictio n for aggravated assault is subsu m ed 12 int o hi s c hil d e ndange rm en t c onvi ct ion
. S inc e th e pa rties d o no t di sput e tha t the 13 co nduc t un de rl y ing the se of fe nse s is uni tary , w e lim it our a na ly sis to le gis la tiv e 14 int en t. “ D et er

m inatio ns of le gis la tiv e int en t, lik e doub le j eo pardy , pr es en t iss ue s of 15 law tha t ar e re vie w ed

de nov o, w iththe ult im at e goa l of suc h r ev ie wto be f

ac ili ta tin g 16 and prom oting the [L ] egislature’ s accom plish m ent of its purpos e. ” State v. M onto ya , 17 2013 -N MS C- 020, ¶

29, 306 P. 3d 4 26 ( al te ratio ns, int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks, a nd 18 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). Whe n, a s he re , the statut es the m se lve s do not e xpr es sly pr ovi de f or 19 m ult ipl e puni shm en ts, w e beg in by ap ply ing the ru le of sta tut or y c onstru ct ionf

ro m9

1 Blockburger v. United States , 284 U
. S. 299 ( 193 2), to en sur e tha t e ac h pr ovi sio n 2 req ui res pr oo f of a fact th atth e o th er d oe s n ot . Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶

¶ 10, 30. 3 Whe n a

ppl y ing Blockburger to sta tut es tha t ar e va gue an d un spe ci fi c or w ri tte n w ith 4 m any alternatives, we look to the charging docum ents and jury instruction s to identi fy 5 th e sp e c i f

i c c r im in al cau se s o f act io n fo r whi ch th e d efen da nt was c on vi ct ed
. Sta te 6 v. Gutierrez , 201 1- N MS C- 024, ¶ ¶ 53, 58, 150 N
. M. 232 , 258 P
. 3d 1 024. 7 { 19} A ggr a v a t e d a s s au l t i s c o m m i t t e d w h e n o n e “ a s s au l t [ s ]
. . . a n o t h e r w i t h a 8 deadly we apon[.] ” N MSA1978 , § 30-3-2(A) ( 1963 ). Assault, as charged in this case, 9 is de fi ne d in N MS A 1978 , Se ct ion 30- 3- 1( B) (1 963) , as “ an y unl aw fu l a ct , thr eat or 10 m en ac ing c ondu ct

w hic h c au se s ano th er

pe rs on t o r ea sona

bly be lie ve that he is in 11 danger of rec eiving an imm ediate battery [. ] ” T he specific m enacing conduct charged 12 in the jury

instruction wa s that Def

endant “ poin ted a gun at [V ictim .] ” 13 { 20} Se ct ion30- 6- 1( D )( 1) m ak es it a cr im e to re ck le ssl y

c au se or pe rm it a ch ild

to 14 be “ placed in a situation that m ay endanger the child’ s life or he al t h[.] ” State v. 15 Co nsau l , 2014 -N MS C- 030, ¶ ¶ 29, 37- 38, 332 P
. 3d 8 50. N ei the r the ind ic tm en t no r 16 the j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns s he d any

li ght on the S ta te ’ s tr ia l the or y fo r the c hil d 17 en dange rm en t c harg e, but in its c los ing a rg um en t, the St at e m ad e it cl ear tha t V ic tim 1 8 wa s en d an g er ed b y t h e g u n : “ We kn o w wh at fi re ar m s d o ,” t h e S t at e t o l dt h e ju ry. “ We10

1 knoww ha t the y ’ re int en de d to do. T he y ’ re int en de d to w ound a nd k ill
. Cl earl y , thi s 2 places [V ictim ] in danger of that.” 3 { 21} D ef

en dant c ont en ds tha t sinc e the S ta te ’ s th eo ry w as that c hil d e ndange rm en t 4 and aggravated assau l t we re bo th comm itted when D efendant pointed a gun at 5 V ic tim , he is tw ic e bei ng punis he d for “ one a ct of thr eate nin g ac hil d invio la tio n of 6 doub le j eo pardy ” ac co rd ing to the m odi fi ed Blockburger a n a l ys i s t h a to u r

S up r e me 7 Co urt a dopt ed

in Gutierrez , 20 11 -NMSC -0 24 , ¶¶ 58 -5 9. Gutierrez all but ov erruled 8 State v . Mc Gruder , 19 97 -NMSC -0 23 , 12 3 N.M. 3 02 , 94 0 P .2d 15 0, abro gat ed on 9 other gr ound

s by State v. C

havez , 200 9- N MS C- 035, ¶ 16, 146 N
. M. 434, 211 P
. 3d 10 891, to hol d th at

the onl y e sse nti al e le m en t of an of fe nse pr ohi bit ing the unl aw fu l 11 taking o f a m otor vehicle was logically s u b s u m ed within the “ anything of value” 12 elem ent of the robbery statute because the j ury in that case w as charged to find that 13 th e ta ki ng of a 1 99 6 Ol ds m ob il e sa ti sf ie d b ot h o ffen se s. Gutierrez , 201 1- N MS C- 024, 1 4 ¶ ¶ 5 3 , 5 8
- 5 9
. S p e c i f

i c a l l y, t h e C o u rtr e f

u s e dt o ap p l y Blockburger to the statut es in 15 the abstra ct , opt ing ins te ad to loo k to the j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns to ide nti fy the c as e- spe ci fi c 16 m eaning of robbery’ s generic statutory term , “ anything of value.” Gutierrez , 201 1- 17 N MS C- 024, ¶

59. Be ca use th e j ur

y ins tr uc tio n f or r obbe ry in Gutierrez

e xpr es sly 18 re qui re d pr oof

that a 199 6 O lds m obi le w as take n, the unl aw fu l t ak in g of am oto r11

1 ve hic le w as ale sse r inc lud ed of fe nse of r obbe ry a nd p uni shm en t c oul d not be ha d f or 2 bo th th e g reat er an d l es se r of fen se . Id

. ¶¶ 5 8- 60
. 3 { 22} W e do no t be lie ve that Gutierrez stands fo r a re tur n to the fa ct -b as ed , ad

hoc 4 doub le j eopardy

a dj udi catio ns tha t w er e re j ec te d in Sw aff

ord
. See G utierrez , 201 1- 5 N MS C- 024, ¶

78 ( Bo sso n, J. , spe ci al ly c onc urrin g) ( ca

uti oni ng a ga ins t l ooki ng 6 bey ond th e indictm en t and jury instruction s in a Blockburger an al y si s) . Nor d o we 7 co nsi de r it an inv itatio n to care le ssl y ove rt ur n conv ic tio ns for

of fe nse s th at

inv olv e 8 som e ove rl ap pin g cond uc t or s hare asin gle e le m en t. See State v. Swick , 2012-NMS C9 018, ¶ 21, 279 P
. 3d 7 47 ( sta tin g th at w e “ ev al ua te le gis la tiv e in te nt by c onsi de ri ng 10 the [ s] ta te ’ s le ga l the or y ind ep en de nt o f the part ic ular fa ct s o f the c as e” ). T he 11 m odi fi ed Blockburger appr oa chis nothin g m or e than a te st to d et er m ine w he the r the 12 state’ s theory for on e crim e, as charged to the j ury , is logically subsu m ed (i. e. , a

lesser 13 in cl ud edoff

en se ) wit hi n t he st at e’s th eo ry fora se pa rat e cri m e. Gutierrez , 201 1- 14 N MS C- 024, ¶

¶ 58- 60. T o say , a s D ef

en dant d oe s, that he is be ing tw ic e puni she d f or 15 the sam e act of

point ing a gun at V ictim is to m erely

restate the te st f

or unitary 16 conduct, which has alre ady been established before any analy sis of the statutes un der 17 Blockburger

can be gi n. Se e Sw aff

ord , 19 91 -NMSC -0 43 , ¶ 25
. 18 { 23} A lth ough th e ac t of poi nti ng the guna t V ic tim is a share d e le m en t of

both 19 offenses as charged, it does not follow that one offense is subsum ed within the other.12

1 Assault, u n d er Sec tion 3 0-3-1(B), which re quires onlygeneral c rim inal intent, can 2 al w ay s be c om

m itt ed w he the r or

not one ac ts w ith the re ck le ss dis re gard re qui re d to 3 co m m it ch il d e nd an ge rm en t. Se e Sta te v . M anus , 197 9- N MS C- 035, ¶ ¶ 12, 14, 93 4 N
. M. 95, 597 P
. 2d 2 80 ( sta tin g th at “ ge ne ra l cr im ina l int en t is re qui re d to supp ort a 5 co nv ic ti on forag gr av at edass au lt ”), ov er ru le d on oth er gro unds bySe lls v . Sta te , 6 1982 -N MS C- 125, ¶

¶ 9- 10, 98 N
. M. 786 , 653 P
. 2d 162. A nd one c ana lw ay s of fe nd 7 Se ct ion30- 6- 1( D )(1) without c au sin g r ea sona

ble appr eh en sio n of

a n im m ed ia te 8 battery . T hus, the j ury

in this ca se could have concluded that De fendant did no t act 9 re ck le ssl y

a nd y et sti ll co nvi ct ed

him of a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult ; o r the j ur

y c oul d have 10 fo und tha t V icti m ’s f ear w as not r ea sona ble a nd s til l c onvi ct ed

D ef en dant o f ch ild 11 en dange rm en t. Be ca

use , unl ike the sit

ua tio n in Gutierrez , it w as possib le to convict 12 De fendant of either off ense without convi cting him of the other, neither of

fense, as 13 a m atter of law and a m atter of logic, i s a less er off ense subsu m ed within the other, 14 an d th e m odi fi ed Blockburger tes t wi ll no t fo recl os e m

ul ti pl e p un is hm en ts . 15 { 24} When two statutes surviv e Blockburger , w e ex am in e “ oth er ind ic iaof 16 legislative int ent.” Sw aff ord , 1991-NMS C-043, ¶ 31. W e l o o k t o “ the language, 17 his tor y , a nd s ubj ec t of

the statut es , a nd [ the a ppe llate c ourts] m

ust ide nti fy the 18 pa rti cu la r ev il so ug ht to be ad dr es se d b y each off en se .” Montoya , 201 3- N MS C- 020, 19 ¶ 3 2 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)
.13

1 St at

ute s di re ct ed

tow ar d pr ote ct ing dif

fe re nt s oc ia l no rm s and a ch ie vin g 2 diff

er en t po lic ie s c anbe vie w ed a s se parate a nd am en ab le to m ult ipl e 3 puni shm ents. . . . I f severa l st at u t es ar e not onlyusuallyviolated 4 tog ethe r, but

a lso se em

de sig ne d to pr ote ct

the sa m e soc ia l inte re st, the 5 inf

er en ce be co m es str ong tha t the fu nc ti on of the m ult ipl e sta tut es is 6 on ly to al lo w alt ern at iv e m ean s o f pr os ecu ti on . 7 Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶

32. 8 { 25} W e be ginw iththe obs er vati on th at ch ildre n are of te n pl ac ed

in dange r by 9 co nd uc t t ha t al so happ en s t o v io la te a se pa rat e c r i m in al st atut e. Se e, e . g. , G raha m , 10 2005 -N MSC- 004, ¶ 12 (involv ing the poss ession of m arij uana, acce ssibl e to a child); 11 State v . O rqui

z , 2 0 1 2
- N M C A
- 0 8 0 , ¶ 1 , 2 8 4 P
. 3 d 4 1 8 ( i n v o l v i n g d r i v i n g w hil e 12 int oxi cate d w ithac hil d inthe ve hic le ); Sta te v . Cl em ont s , 2006 -N MC A -0 31, ¶

¶ 11- 13 12, 139 N. M. 147, 130 P. 3d 20 8 (involv ing th e com m issio n of various traffic offenses 14 wit h a ch il d i n t he ve hi cl e). Vio la ti on of a sep arat e st atut e is act ua ll y a fact orth atwe 15 co nsi de r in d et er

m ini ng w he the r the gr av ity a nd l ike lih oo d of

pot en tia l harm

is 16 su ffi ci en t to su pp or t a co nv ic ti on forch il d e nd an ge rm en t. Chavez , 200 9- N MS C- 035, 17 ¶ 25 (“ [S] uch legislativ e declar ation of harm m ay be useful, though n ot disp ositiv e, 18 to an e ndange rm en t ana ly sis w he n th e L eg isl at ur e ha s de fi ne d t he act as athr eat t o 19 pu bl ic he al th , saf

et y , and welf

are.” ). 20 { 26} T he de fe ndant i n G raha m w as c onvi ct ed of c hil d e ndange rm en t base d on the 2 1 p o s s e s s i o n o f i l l e g a l d r u g s w h e n p o l i c e f

o u n d c r a c k c o c a i n e i n t h e d e f e n d a n t ’s h o me 22 an d am ar ij uanabud

in a chi ld’ s cr ib in the m as te r be dr oom . 2005 -N MS C- 004, ¶ 2;14

1 se e id. ¶

32 ( Bo sso n, J. , dis se nti ng)
. T he L eg isl at ur e’ s de sig na tio n of

m ar ij uanaa s a 2 Sc he dul e I co ntr oll ed sub stanc e w as c ri tic al in upho ldi ng the e nd ange rm en t 3 co nv ic ti on . Id

. ¶ 12. Si m ilarl y , the de fe ndant i n O rqui zw as “ pr ope rl y

c onvi ct ed ” of 4 both dr ivi ng w hil e int oxi cate d an d ch ild en dange rm en t “ ba se d upon the pr es en ce of 5 a ch ild in the m ovi ng v eh ic le that [ the d] ef en dant dro ve . ” 2012 -N MC A -0 80, ¶ ¶ 1, 11- 6 12 ( re ly ing on a

li ne of pr ior dr ivi ng wh ile int oxi cate d/c hil d abus e ca se s)
. I n O rqui z , 7 we i m p l i ci t l y re co g n i ze dth at t wo i n t er es t s we re b ei n g i n fr i n g ed b y t h e d ef en d an t ’s 8 conduct: “ [N ] ot onl y

[did] the intox icate d d ri v er threaten the safety of the general 9 publ ic, but th e driver a lso po se[d] an im m ediate, subs tantial, and fore seeable threa t 10 to a specific m em

ber of the genera l publ ic[, ]
. . . a child.” Id

. ¶ 15. 11 { 27} Ther e is a com m on sense princip le suppo rting mul t i p le punish m ents und er 12 the se c ir cu m stanc es . S oc ie ty r ec ogni ze s th at

tho se w ho e ndange r ch ildre n inthe 1 3 p r o c e s s o f c o m

m i t t i n g c e rt a i n c r i m e s a r e s i m p l y m o r e c u l p ab l e t h a n th ose w ho 14 com m it the sam e cr im es without putt ing a child at risk. T he Le gislature has expressed 15 thi s int er es t by pr ovi din g fo r ex pande d pr ote ct ion of ch ildre n in Se ct ion30- 6- 1( D )( 1) 16 an d thro ugho ut the Cr im ina l C ode
. F or e xa m ple , the c ri m e of

c hil d a buse r es ult ing 17 in death is a first d egree felony , Section 30-6-1(F), authorizing a b asic s entence of life 18 im pr is on m en t, see N MS A 197 8, § 31- 18- 15( A )( 1) (2 007, am en de d 2016 ), w hil e the 19 crim e of ca

using d eath to an adult with a sim ilar m ental state is a fourth degree15

1 fe lon y , N MS A 1978 , § 30-2 -3 (B ) (1 994) (i nvol unt ar y m an sla ught er ), pr ovi din g f

or 2 a p en al ty of on ly eig ht een m on th s i m pr is on m en t, see § 31 -1 8- 15( A )( 10)
. A nd c hil d 3 en da ng erm en t (n ot res ul ti ng in de at h) i s a th ird de gr ee fe lo ny, see § 30-6-1(D)( 1), 4 (E), su bje c t to a pe na lt y of t hr ee years i m

pr is on m en t, see § 31 -1 8- 15( A )( 9) , w hil e 5 there is no com

parable crim e for endangering an adult. By enacting thes e o ff en s es 6 and establ i s h ing enhanced penalti es for their c omm issio n, the L egislature has 7 expressed a “ com

pelling publi c interest in protecting defenseless children.” G raha m , 8 2005 -N MS C- 004, ¶

9 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T his is al l t o 9 say that the soc ia l e vil ad dr es se d by the c hil d e ndange rm en t st at ute is the inc hoa te but 10 “ truly significant risk of serious harm to children[,] ” Chavez , 200 9- N MS C- 035, ¶ 22, 11 which is an interest that has som etim es j ustified a greater degree of punishm ent than 12 th atim

po se d for id en ti cal cri m in al co nd uc t t ha t d oe s n ot crea te su ch a ri sk
. Se e, e . g. , 13 G raha m , 200 5- N MS C- 004, ¶ 12; O rqui

z , 201 2- N MC A -0 80, ¶

1. 14 { 28} O n th e oth er

hand, “ [t] he aggr av at ed a ssa ult statut e is a im ed

a t de te rr ing 15 ag gr es si on ag ai ns t o th er p eo pl e in whi ch th e u se of d ead ly w eap on s i s i nv ol ve d.” 16 State v. R odrig uez , 199 2- N MC A -0 35, ¶ 17, 113 N
. M. 767 , 833 P.2d 244. T he 17 aggression sp ecifica lly crim in al i zed in Section 30-3-1(B) is conduct that causes 1 8 m e n t a l h a rm

t o t h e v i c t i m

— i
. e . , p u t s t h e v i c t i m

i n f e a r , e v e n w h e n t h a tf

e a r i s n ot 19 acco m

pa ni edby actu al phy sica l h arm , see State v. Roper , 200 1- N MC A -0 93, ¶ 12, 13116

1 N.M. 18 9, 3 4 P .3d 13 3, o r ev en an y ris k o f ph y si cal ha rm . See § 30 -3 -1 (B ) (r equir ing 2 onlya re asonable belief that a battery is im m inent). 3 { 29} W e conclude that there is little overlap betwee n the social policies addressed 4 by the ch il d abu se a n d a s sa ul t s ta tu te s. Se e Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶ 32 5 (“ St at ute s di re ct ed

tow ar d pr ote ct ing dif

fe re nt s oc ia l no rm s an d ac hie vin g di ff er en t 6 pol ic ie s c anbe vie w ed

a s se parate an d am en ab le to m ult ipl e puni shm en ts. ”)
. W e al so 7 co nc lu de th at th e two st atut es are n ot ord in ari ly vio la te d t og et he r. See Swick , 201 2- 8 NMS C-018, ¶ 13 (“ Le gislativ e intent m ay be gleaned [by ] . . . d eterm ining whether 9 the statut es a re us ua lly vio la te d to ge the r[
. ] ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 10 om itt ed ))
. Re as ona

ble f ear can be im

pose d by thr eat to a ch ild vic tim w he n the re is 11 no r isk

of a ct ua l, phy sic al harm

to a ch ild
. A nd the li fe a nd h ea lthof that c hil d c anbe 12 re ck le ssl y

put at subs tanti al ri sk wh ethe r or not the de fe ndant m ak es af

ear- ind uc ing 13 thr eat. Bu t in unusua l ca se s whe re a def en dant ac ts i n am an ne r tha t i nf ri nge s onboth 14 of tho se soc ia l i nte re sts , m ult ipl e puni shm en ts f

or a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult a nd c hil d 1 5 e n d an g e rmen td o n o tv i o l a t e t h e r i g h tt o b e f r e e f r o m d o ub l e je o p a r d y. 16 { 30} T his c as e is a good exam ple of the pol ic ie s a t i ssu e. T his w as a li fe -thr eate nin g 17 and harrowing experience for Victim —a child. H e testified that he though t he wa s 18 goi ng t o be shot fr om the m om en t he saw the gun. H is m oth er la te r fo und him

a t the 19 ne ighbor s’ hou se , cr

y ing a nd s care d, a nd the f am ily ult im at el y

m ove d ou t of

the ir17

1 hom e be cau se th ey

no l onge r fe lt co m fo rt ab le the re . Be ca use the lawse parate ly 2 puni she s th e dis tin ct ev ils ev ide nt he re , w e af fi rm D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s f

or both 3 of fe nse s. 4 C . A ggr avat ed Bu rg lar y an d A ggr avat ed A ssa ul t 5 { 31} D ef

en dant’ s f ina l arg um en t i s th at

the sa m e fi re ar

m w as use d to ag gr av at e both 6 bur glary

a nd a ssa ult , the re by

of fe ndi ng p ri nc ipl es of doub le j eo pardy . T his a rg um en t 7 is unpe rs ua siv e fo r a num be r of r ea sons , the m ost

obv iou s be ing that w e ha ve a lr ea dy 8 he ld tha t the a ggr av at ed bur glary w as c om ple te be fo re the gunw as poi nte d a t V ic tim 9 in the livi ng room , which was the b as i s for the child endangerm ent and aggravated 1 0 a s s au l tc o n v i c t i o n s . Th e r e f o r e , th e c o n du c tu n d e r l yi n g t h e t w o o f f e n s e s i s n o tu n i t a ry, 11 B er nal , 200 6- N MS C- 050, ¶ 11; D eG raf

f , 200 6- N MS C- 011, ¶

27, a nd o ur

double 12 j eopardy

inqui ry “ is at an end.” Sw aff

ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶

28. 13 CON CLU SION 14 { 32} D ef

en dant’ s c onvi ct ion s are a ff irm ed
. 15 { 33} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
16

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 17 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, Ju dg e18

1 WE CO NCUR:
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 3 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 5 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e