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

2 Op in ion N um be r:

____ ____ ____ __ 3 F ili ng D at e: Ju ne 2, 201 6 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5255 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 7 v
. 8 ROB ERT GEOR GE TU FT S, 9 D ef

en dant- Re spon de nt.
10 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 11 M ar ci Be ye r, D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Ke nneth H. Stalter, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Pe tition er
16 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 17 Kim berly Chavez C ook, Assistant Appellate D efender 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 CHÁ VEZ , Just ice. 3 { 1} D ef

en dant R obe rt

T uf ts, am al e in h i s l at e thi rt ie s, f ilm ed him se lf m as tur ba tin g, 4 saved the electronic im age on a secure d i gital (SD ) m em ory car d, inserted the card 5 int o ac el l ph one , hande d th e ce ll phon e to a f if te en -y ear- old

gir l ( Ch ild ) w ithw hom 6 he ha d de ve loped an in tim at e but non -s ex ua l r el at ion shi p, a nd t old he r the re w as a 7 surprise on the ph one for her. D efendant w as co n v i ct ed of crim inal sexual 8 com m unication with a c hild in violatio n of NMS A 1978, Se ction 30 -37-3.3 (2007). 9 The Court of Appeals r eversed the conviction, hold ing th at “ ‘ to send[,] ’ when used 10 to d es cr ibe the a ct

of c au sin g an oth er pe rs on to re ce ive a phy sic al obj ec t[ , ] ev oke s th e 11 notio n of a third-party car rier, ” and t herefor e, when D efendant hand-delivered 12 obsc en e el ec tr oni c im ag es to Ch ild , he did not “ se nd” the im ag es to he r by m eans o f 13 an el ect ro ni c co m

m un ic at io n de vi ce. Sta te v . T uft s , 2015 -N MC A -0 75, ¶¶ 15, 18, 355 14 P.3 d 3 2, cert. gran ted , 2015 -N MC E RT -0 06. Fo r the re as ons that fo llo w , w e re ve rs e 1 5 t h e C o u rt o f Ap p ea l s an dre m an dt h i s ca s e t o t h at Co u rt fo r r es o l u t i o n o f D ef en d an t ’s 16 re m ai nin g c la im s. 17 DISC US SION 18 { 2} Se ct ion30- 3 7
- 3
. 3( A ) de fi ne s th e cr im e of c ri m ina l se xua l c om

m uni catio n w ith 19 a ch ild

a s f oll ow s:2

1 Cr im ina l se xua l c om m uni catio n w ithac hil d co ns ists of ape rs on 2 know ing ly

a nd i nten ti ona lly

c om m uni catin g di re ct ly

w ithaspe ci fi c 3 ch ild

und er six te en y ears of ag e by se ndi ng the ch ild obs ce ne im ag es of 4 th e p e r s o n ’ s i n t i m a t e p a rt s b y m e a n s o f

a n e l e c t r o n i c c o m

m u n i ca tio n 5 de vic e w he n th e pe rp etrator is at le as t f our y ears old er

than th e ch ild
. 6 An “ ‘ elect ro n i c comm unication device’ m eans a com puter, video rec order, digital 7 cam era, fax m achine, te lephon e, pager or any other device th at can produce an 8 electronically

generated im age[. ] ” Section 30-37-3.3(C)(1)
. De fendant onlyargues 9 that his cond uct of placing an SD m em ory car d in a cell phone and hand ing th at 10 phon e to C hil d c an not c onst itu te “ se ndi ng” und er S ec tio n 30 -3 7- 3. 3. 11 { 3} Thi s ca se pre se nt s a p ur el y leg al is su e o f st atu t ory

in te rp ret at io n wh ic h we 12 rev ie w de no vo . Sta te v . O ffi ce of the P ub. D ef

. e x re l. M uqqd din , 201 2- N MS C- 029, 13 ¶ 13, 285 P. 3d 622. “ O ur pr inc ipa l goa l in int er pr et ing statut es is to giv e ef fe ct to the 14 Le gislature’ s intent.” Griego v. Olive r , 20 14 -NMSC -0 03, ¶ 20, 316 P
. 3d 8 65; see 15 als o N MS A 197 8, § 12 -2 A -1 8( A )( 1) ( 1997 ) (h old ing that i f possibl e, w e w ill 16 co nstru e a statut e or

r ule to “ give effe ct to its obj ec tiv e an d purp ose ”)
. R ule s of 17 statut or

y c onstru ct ion ar e pr ovi de d by both the L eg isl at ur e in the U nif

orm S ta tut e an d 18 Ru le Co ns tru ct io n Act , see NMS A 1978 , §§ 12-2A- 1 to - 20 ( 1997 ), an d b y New 19 Mex ic o c as e la w. 20 { 4} W e m

ust construe “ sending ” as it is used in Sec tion 3 0-37-3.3(A ) to give effe ct3

1 to th e Leg is la tu re’s o bjec ti ve an d p ur po se . See State v. Ogden , 1 99 4- NMSC -0 29 , ¶ 2 34, 118 N
. M. 234 , 880 P
. 2d 8 45 (“ A cr im ina l statut e m ust be int er pr et ed in lig ht o f 3 the harm

or e vil it see ks to pr ev en t. ”)
. W e w ill f ir st t ur n to the pla in l an gua ge of 4 Sect io n 30 -3 7- 3.3 (A) to gu id e o urin te rp ret at io n. See § 12-2A-19. To be c onvi cted 5 of v i o l a t i n g S e c t i o n 3 0
- 3 7
- 3
. 3 ( A ) , ad e f e n d a n tm u s tkn o w i n g l y

a n di n t e n t i o na lly 6 co m m uni cate dir ec tly w ith a spe ci fi c ch ild by “ se ndi ng the c hil d ob sc en e im ag es of 7 [the defendant’ s] intim ate parts by m eans of an electronic com m unicati o n d ev ice 8
. . . .” W e at tri bu te th e us ua l and or di na ry m ean in g t o wo rd s u se d i n a st atut e. Sta te 9 v. M el ton , 198 4- N MC A-1 15, ¶ 16, 102 N
. M. 120 , 692 P
. 2d 4 5. W e of te n us e 10 di ct io na rie s fo r gu id an ce as to th e u su al an d o rd in ary m ean in g o f wor ds
. See Stat e 11 v. Ni ck R. , 200 9- N MS C- 050, ¶ 18, 147 N
. M. 182 , 218 P
. 3d 8 68. W e ag re e w iththe 12 Court of Appeals’ use of the onlin e Oxford Dictionaries to a scertain t h e o rd inary 13 m eanin g of

“ se nd” a s to “ ‘ [c ] au se to go o r be take n to apart ic ular de sti na tio n; 14 arrange fo r t h e d el i very of, especially

by m ail[, ] ’ and secondarily , a s ‘ [c] ause (a 15 m essage or com

puter file) to be transm itted e lectronically [. ] ’ ” Tu fts , 20 15 -NMCA1 6 075, ¶ 15 ( alter at io ns in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng O xf or d D ic tio na ri es , 1 7 ht tp : // www .o x fo rddictionaries.com /us/d efinition/am erica

n_ engli sh/send(last visited 18 May 13, 2 016)). How ever, we disagree w ith the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that4

1 “ ‘ to s en d’ ” r equir es tr an sm itt ing an ob ject to a nothe r by

m eans o f a thi rd -p ar

ty 2 carr ie r. Tu

fts , 201 5- N MC A -0 75, ¶

15. 3 { 5} Co m

m uni catin g di re ct ly

w ithac hil d by m eans of an el ec tr oni c co m m uni catio n 4 d e v i c e may o c c u r

t h r o u g h a t h i r d

- p a rt y c a rr i e r s u c h a s s o c i a l me d i a , i n t e rn e tf o r u ms 5 and m essage boards, on line file-sharing services, text m essage, or em ail. How ever, 6 it m ay a lso oc cur by de liv er ing the e le ctro nic c om m uni catio n de vic e co nta ini ng the 7 obsc en e im ag es of

the de fe ndant d ir ec tly to the ch ild
. It doe s no t m atte r w he the r the 8 de liv er y w as by the de fe ndant o r a thi rd -p ar ty c ar ri er ; so m eo ne had to c au se the 9 electronic imag es t o go or be taken to a particular destination—in this case, that 10 som eo ne w as D ef

en dant, an d the de sti na tio n wa s C hil d. T he his tor y a nd p ur pose of 11 the statut e supp ort this int er pr et at ion
. 12 { 6} The N ewMexico L egislature enacted Se cti o n 30-37-3.3 in 20 07. H owever , 13 this was not its f

i rs t l eg islative effort to enact a lawthat crim inalizes sexual 14 co m m uni catio n wit h a ch ild. I n 19 98, the L eg isl at ur e en ac te d alawint en de d to 15 pr ote ct m in or s f

ro m se xua l c om

m uni catio n and i m ag es in the dig ita l a ge by 16 pr oh ib it in g di ss em in at io n of ha rm fu l m at eri al s v ia co m pu te r. See 199 8 N
. M. L aw s, 17 ch
. 64, § 1 (c odi fi ed a s N MS A 197 8, Sect io n 30- 37- 3. 2)
. T he 199 8 ve rs ionof 18 Se ct ion30- 37- 3. 2( A ) pr ohi bit ed ape rs on, thr ough5

1 the use of

ac om put er c om m uni catio ns s y ste m

that a llo w s th e inp ut, 2 o u tp u t , e x a mi n a t i o n o r t r a n s f e r o f c o mp u t e r d a t ao r c o mp u t e r p r o g r a ms 3 fr om

one co m put er to an oth er , to know ing ly an d int en tio na lly ini tiate or 4 en ga ge in co m

m uni catio n w itha[ ch ild ] w he n su chc om m uni cati on in 5 w hole or in part de pic ts a ct

ua l or sim ulate d nu dity , se xua l i nte rc our se 6 or

a ny oth er se xua l c ondu ct . 7 1998 N. M. L aw s, ch. 64, § 1. Notably , wi t h i t s s pecific r efer ence to a “ com puter 8 co m m uni catio ns sy ste m , ” thi s c ri m e pr ohi bit ed “ se ndi ng” im ag es in the narr owse nse 9 of e le ctro nic tr an sm iss ion
. Sho rtl y th er ea ft er , the T en th C ir cu it Co urt of Appe al s 10 af fi rm ed an inj unc tio n bar

ri ng enf or ce m en t of Se ct ion 30- 37- 3. 2( A ) on the gr ound s 11 that i t un co nst itu tio na lly vio la te d F ir st Am e n dm e n t r igh ts t o f re e spe ec h by

bur de nin g 12 ot he rwis e p ro te ct edadul t co m m un ic at io ns on th e In te rn et . See A m. Ci vil Liberties 13 U nio n v . J ohns on , 194 F. 3d 1149 , 116 0, 11 64 (10th Cir. 1999) ( AC LU ). The court 14 co nc lud ed

that the statut e w as ove r br oa d be ca use it c oul d po te nti al ly

be appl ie d to 15 all com

m unication s on the Internet since (1) it only required a gener al knowledge that 16 children m ight view the m aterial, and (2) it could not b e re ad to prohib it condu ct 17 ta rg et in g a sp eci fic ch il d. Id

. at 1159
. T he L eg isl at

ur e subs eque ntl y el im inate d th is 18 cr im e thr ougha200 5 a m en dm en t t o th e statut e. 200 5 N
. M. L aw s, c h. 295 , § 1. 19 { 7} In 2007, the Legislature a dded Section 30-37 -3.3 to t h e Ac t , which defined 2 0 cr i m i n al s ex u al co m

mu n i c a t i o n wi t h a c h i l d . 2 0 0 7 N.M . La ws , c h . 6 7 , § 1 . We 21 pr es um e that “ the le gis la tur e ac te d w ithf ull kno w le dge of

r el ev an t st at utory

a nd6

1 com m on law. ” Sta te ex re l. Q uin tan a v. Sc hne dar , 199 3-NMS C-033, ¶ 4, 115 N. M. 2 573, 855 P
. 2d 5 62. T he re fo re , w e as sum e that the L eg isl at ur e dr af te d the langua ge 3 o f S e c t i o n 3 0
- 3 7
- 3
. 3 ( A ) wi t h t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l h o l d i n g b y AC LU in m ind
. 4 Co nse que ntl y , S ec ti on 30 -3 7- 3.3 (A) req ui res a pe rs on to “ kn owi ng ly and i nte lli ge ntl y 5 co m m u n i ca t [e ] dir ec tlywith a spe ci fic c hil d
. . . . ” (E m

pha sis a dde d. ) I n c ontra st t o 6 the 199 8 ve rs ionof

S ec tio n 30 -3 7- 3. 2, S ec tio n 30 -37- 3. 3( A )’ s a ddi tio na l f oc us o n 7 dir ec t c om

m uni catio n targ et ing a spe ci fi c ch ild co uld se em ing ly be a ch ie ve d th ro ugh 8 an el ec tr oni c tr an sm iss ion or by dir ec tly handi ng the ch ild an ele ctro nic 9 com m unicat i on d e vice containing forbidden m aterial. T his statu tory history provides 10 us w ithim

portant c ont ex t a s to the m eanin g of “ se ndi ng” in Se ct ion30- 37- 3. 3( A ), but 11 we a l s o lo okto th e p ur po se of t he st atut e fo r fu rth er g ui da nc e. See State v. Cleve , 12 1999 -N MS C- 017, ¶

8, 127 N
. M. 240 , 980 P
. 2d 2 3. 13 { 8} T he e le m en ts o f the of fe nse of c ri m ina l se xual co m

m uni catio n w ithac hil d 14 reveal the purpose of Se ction 30 -37-3.3(A ), which is to protect children under sixteen 1 5 fr o m b ei n g t ar g et ed b y an ad u l tan dp ro v i d ed wi t h o b s c e n e i m ag es o f t h e a du l t ’s 16 int im at e part s onade vic e that c an pr oduc e, sto re , or dis tr ibu te the el ec tr oni c im ag es . 17 The L egislature e na c t ed Ar ticle 37 of the Crim inal Code, “ Sexually Or iented Material 18 Harm ful to M inors,” because “ children do not have the j udgm ent necessary to protect7

1 the m se lve s f

ro m harm . . . . ” N MS A 1978 , § 30-3 7- 9 (198 3)
. T he harm targ et ed by 2 Se ct i o n 3 0 -3 7 -3 .3 (A ) c o n s i s t s o f a n ad u l tat t emp t i n g t o p i qu e a s p ec i fi c c h i l d ’s 3 pr ur ie nt i nte re st i n th e ad ult by dir ec tly c om m uni cat in g to the c hil d ob sc en e 4 e l e c t r o n i c im ag es of t he adul t. See N MS A 197 8, § 30 -3 7- 1( C) , ( F) (1 ) (1 973) 5 (d ef ini ng wha t se xua lly

or ie nte d m at er ia l i s harm fu l t o m ino rs a s in cl udi ng an a ct of 6 “ m asturbation” that “ predom inantly appeals to the prurient
. . . interest” of a m inor). 7 W he th er

adig ita l c am er a, avid eo r ec or de r, or ac el l ph one is hande d di re ct ly to a 8 ch ild or a n im ag e is e le ctro nic al ly tr an sm itt ed

to one of tho se de vic es , the effe ct of 9 the c ondu ct

a nd the r es ult ing harm

to the c hil d—a cc es s to obs ce ne e le ctro nic al ly 10 ge ne rat ed im ag es vi a an el ect ro ni c co m m un ic at io n dev ic e—i s t he same. Cf. Ogden , 11 1994 -N MS C- 029, ¶

34 ( dis cu ssi ng the pur

pose of a statut e m eant to de te r kil lin gs o f 12 law enforcem ent office rs and apply ing th e statute to the killin g of Com m unitySer vice 13 Of ficer s in order to ensure that the evil the statute w as enacted to deter w as deterr ed). 14 W e cannot

c onf ine the de fi nit ion of

“ se ndi ng” to en co m

pa ss o nly

e le ctro nic 15 tr an sm iss ion s be ca

use doi ng s o w oul d f

ru str at e the pur

pose of the le gis la tio n. 16 { 9} Inthi s c as e, D ef en dant gav e Chi ld at le as t tw o cel l phone s over se ve ra l m onths, 17 which they

used t o t ex t o r talk to each other on a daily basis. A s their non-sexual 18 relatio n s hip prog ressed, De fendant recorded him self nude and m asturbating, saved8

1 the f iles to an S D m em or

y c ar d, a nd p la ce d th e SD c ar d inac el l ph one w hic h he 2 hande d to Ch ild , e xc laim ing that the re w as asur pr ise f or he r on the pho ne . T he 3 co mm un ica tio n c oul d no t have be enm or e dir ec t, a nd i t w as a ch ie ve d th ro ugh a 4 t el ep h o n e o r a d ev i ce cap ab l e o f “pr o du c[ i n g ] a n el ec t ro n i ca l l y g en er at ed i m ag e[ ,]” 5 w hic h w as spe ci fi ca lly de fi ne d by the L eg isl at

ur e as an “ ‘ el ec tr oni c co m m uni catio n 6 de vic e. ’ ” S ec tio n 30 -3 7- 3. 3( C) (1 ). D ef en dant h an de d th e ce ll phone w iththe 7 m em or y c ar d th at he ins er te d in to the pho ne to Ch ild , an d it wa s wi th tha t ce ll phon e 8 that Child produced the obscene electronically generated im age of D efendant w hich 9 he int en de d C hil d to vie w . D ef en dant’ s arg um en t tha t he is no t guilty of vio la tin g 10 Se ct ion30- 37- 3. 3( A ) be ca use he did

not tr an sm it the ob sc en e el ec tr oni c im ag e to 11 Ch il d t hr ou gh a th ird -p art y carr ie r is wit ho ut m eri t. 12 CON CLU SION 13 { 10} W e re ve rs e the Co urt of Ap pe al s’ de te rm inatio n that D ef en dant did n ot “ se nd” 14 the pictures of him self under Section 30-37-3.3(A) and rem and the case to the Court 15 of Appe al s f

or c onsi de ratio n of

his oth er c la im s. 16 { 11} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

17

____ ________

____ ____ ____ ____ __ 18 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice9

1 WE CONCUR:

2 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 3 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Ch ief Justice

4 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 5 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

6 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 7 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, Just ice

8 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 9 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Justice