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: S ep te m be r 26, 201 6 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5035 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-P etitioner, 7 v
. 8 JE NNIFER ST EPHENS ON, 9 D ef

en da nt- Re spon de nt.
10 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 11 M ic ha el E. V igi l, D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney Ge neral 14 Maris V eidem anis, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 15 San ta Fe, NM 16 for Pe tition er
17 Bennett J. Ba

ur, C hief Public De fender 18 B. Douglas W ood, III , A ssistant Appellate D efender 19 San ta Fe, NM 20 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 CHÁ VEZ , Just ice. 3 { 1} D ef

en da nt J en nif

er S te phe nsonpla ce d her tw o- y ear- old son Is ai ah in his ro om 4 at be dti m e an d lo ck ed

the doo r fo r the nig ht. I sa iah’ s f athe r he ar d I sa iah w him

pe ri ng 5 the ne xt m or

nin g and f

ound him w ithhis le gs p inn ed

be tw ee n adr es se r an d a 6 crossbar on I saiah’ s bed. Isaiah developed a painful c ondi tion des cr i b ed as 7 com partm ent syndrom e, which re quir ed an ag g ressive surgery to correc t. Aj ury 8 co nvi ct ed

D ef en da nt of one co unt of ab an donm en t of a c hil d r es ult ing in gr ea t bo dil y 9 harm , a

second-degree fe lony , c ontra ry to NMS A 1978, Se ction 30 -6-1(B) (2009), 10 af te r be ing una

ble to fi nd tha t D ef

en da nt c om

m itt ed c hil d a buse by f ai lin g to a ct

f or 11 Is ai ah ’ s w el fare a nd s af ety , c ontrary

to Se ct ion30- 6- 1( D ). T he Co urt of Appe al s 12 re ve rs ed D ef

en da nt’ s co nvi ct ion , hol din g tha t he r co nduc t did not fa ll wit hi n t he 13 m eanin g of “ le av ing or ab an doni ng” be ca use she did

not le av e Is ai ahw iththe int en t 14 no t to ret ur n. Sta te v . Ste phe nson , 20 1 5 -N M CA -0 3 8 , ¶¶ 23 , 25 , 34 6 P. 3 d 4 0 9 . We 1 5 gr a n t e d t h e S t a t e ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t o f c e rt i o r a r i t o d e t e rm i n e w h e t h e r t h e C o u rtof 16 Appeals’ definition of “ leaving or ab andoni ng” wa s correc t and whether the e vidence 17 w as suf

fi ci en t a s am at te r of

law to supp ort the c onvi ct ion

. 201 5- N MC E RT -0 01. 18 { 2} W e con cl ude tha t the L eg isl at ur e int en de d th e cr im e of

aba ndon m en t of

ac hil d 19 unde r Se ct ion30- 6- 1( B) to inc lud e the sit ua tio ns (1) w he re apare nt i nte nti ona lly2

1 leaves a c hild with the inten t not t o return, wher eby the child m ay

or does suffer 2 neglect, wh i ch wo uld cons titute “ abandoni ng”; and (2) wher e a par ent or other 3 care giver intentio nally departs from a child, leaving the child und er ci rcum stances 4 whe reb y

th e ch il d m ay

or d oe s s uf

fer n e g l e ct , whi ch wou ld co ns ti tu te “ le av in g.” 5 T hus, w e int er

pr et S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (B ) dif

fe rent ly than th e Co urt of Appe al s. T he 6 dis se n t o f

f e r s a t h i r d i n t e r

p r e t a t i o n o f S e c t i o n 3 0

- 6

- 1 ( B )

— a s c au s i n g a c h i l dto 7 re m ai n insom e spe ci fi ed c ondi tio n— which w e int er pr et to be c onsi ste nt o nly

w ith 8 the crim e of perm itting child a buse by failing to act for the child’s saf ety , a crim e that 9 the j ur y r ej ec te d. P erhaps the m ost im portant l es son fr om

thi s c as e is tha t the 10 L eg isl at

ur e m ust c lari fy it s in te nt w ithr es pe ct

to the c ri m e of

c hil d a ba ndon m en t. 11 N ev er the le ss, w e agr ee w ith the Co urt of Ap pe al s th at D ef en da nt c oul d no t be f

ound 12 gui lty of aba ndon ing I sa iah bec au se the re is no evid en ce that D ef en da nt i nte nti ona lly 13 le ft I sa iah w iththe int en t no t t o r et ur n. W e al so con cl ude that the re w as not suf fi ci en t 14 ev ide nc e to supp ort the fi ndi ng tha t D ef en da nt int en tio na lly de pa rt ed fro m Isa iah, 15 leaving him

under ci rc u m stances wher e Isaiah m ight h ave or did suffer 1 6 n eg l ec t

—wh er e h i s we l l -b ei n g wa s at ri s ko f h ar m . We t h er ef o re re v er s e D ef

en d an t ’s 17 co nvi ct iona nd r em an d f or a n e ntr y of aj udgm en t of

a cquit ta l. 18 BACKGRO UND3

1 { 3} A n t h o n y A p o d a c a , I s a i a h ’s f a t h e r , w o rk e dt h e l a t e n i g h ts h i f tu n t i l 1 : 3 0 a . m. 2 the m orn i n g of January 28, 2010. A ntho ny

arr ived at Def

endant’ s apartm ent at 3 approxim ately

2:00 a.m ., an d because the door wa s locked, he knocked to awaken 4 D ef en da nt t o le t hi m

int o th e ap ar

tm en t. A nth ony w as hun gr y , so h e as ke d D ef

en da nt 5 to g o to Mc D ona ld’ s to ge t hi m som e fo od. Me an w hil e A nth ony w en t i nto his 6 daught er

N ev eah’ s r oom

a nd f ound he r aw ak e on the f loo r out sid e he r cr ib, so h e 7 pic ke d he r up to fe ed he r a bot tle of m ilk

. H e did not ch ec k on Is ai ah , his son , 8 b e c au s e h e a s s u me dt h a tI s a i a h w a s a s l e e p a n dA n t h o n y d i d n o t w a n t t o d i s tu r b h i m. 9 Is ai ahha d be enloc ke d in his r oom f or the nig ht. 10 { 4} A ft er

D ef en da nt r et

ur ne d w ithf

ood fr om Mc D ona ld’ s, A nth ony

share d hi s 11 food with Neveah before putting h er bac k to sleep in her crib. Anthony asked 12 D ef en da nt t o ch ec k on Is ai ah

. D ef en da nt t old

A nth ony that I sa iah w as f

ine , but it is 13 not c le ar w he the r she a ct

ua lly c he ck ed on h im , a lth ough in her state m en t t o th e 1 4 p o l i c e , D e f

e n d a n ts a i d t h a t I s a i a h w a s a s l e e p w h e n s h e c h e c k e do n h i m a t2 : 3 0 a . m. 15 A nth ony did not ch ec k on Is ai ah tha t night

. Bo th par en ts w en t to slee p and did n ot 16 leave the apartm ent after De fendant returned from

McD onald’s. T here is no evidence 17 tha t the pare nts he ar d I sa iah c ry ing or sc re am ing w he n th ey

w en t t o be d or

in the 18 m idd le of

the nig ht. A nth ony

te sti fi ed tha t he w oke up i n th e m idd le of the nig ht and4

1 did not he ar I sa iah c ry ing or

sc re am ing

. 2 { 5} Anthony woke up the next m orning around 7:00 a. m . an d h ea rd Isaiah 3 whim pering, so he unlocked Isaiah’ s bedroom door and saw Isaiah pinn ed betwee n 4 a dr es se r an d ac ro ssb ar f ro m his tod dle r be d. A nth ony c oul d te ll tha t Is ai ah ’ s le gs 5 w er e sw oll ena nd r ed dis h pu rp le a nd tha t he w as in pa in. D ef en da nt took

I sa iah to 6 the hos pit al af

te r pic kin g up he r fa the r, Ca lvi n Ste phe nson , on the w ay to the hos pit al

. 7 Ca lvi n te sti fi ed

that I sa iah w him

pe re d bu t di d no t c ry

on the w ay

to the hos pit al

. 8 { 6} D r. Me he r Be st w as the fi rs t doct or to see Is ai ah at the hosp ita l and h e co uld 9 im m ed ia te ly t el l tha t I sa iah w as in pa in. I sa iah’ s lo w er e xtr em iti es w er e unus ua lly 10 ha rd wit h strange m ar

ks and l es ion s th at

la te r pr ove d to be pr es sur e le sio ns f ro m 11 being pi nned for a prolonged tim e. Isaiah did not have bruises or broken bon es which 1 2 D r . B e s tw o u l dh a v e e x p e c t e d t o s e e i f at o d d l e r

s u f f e r e dac r u s h i n j u ry f r o m a 13 dr es se r. By

th e ti m e Is ai ah was i n t he em erg en cy roo m , he was “ in co ns ol ab le .” 14 { 7} Is ai ahw as dia gnos ed w ithc om

pa rtment syndr om e of

both le gs a s ar es ult

of 15 be ing pin ne d be twee n th e dr es se r an d th e cr oss ba r on h is t oddl er be d. T he re is no 16 evidence as to how the dresser actually fell on Isaiah, althoug h Anthony testified that 17 Isaiah liked to clim

b on furnitu re. 18 { 8} Co m

pa rtm en t sy

ndr om e usual ly

r es ult s f ro m ac ru sh i nj ur

y that c anbe li m

b-5

1 or e ve n li fe -thr ea te nin g. S ev er al m ed ic al d oc to rs te sti fi ed that c om

pa rtm en t 2 sy nd r om e takes hours to develop

. The orthopedic surgeon who treated Isa iah testified 3 tha t he tho ught

I sa iah w oul d have ha d to ha ve be entr ap pe d f or a t l ea st “ ei ght

to 4 twelve hou rs an d , m ore likely , tw enty -four hours.” The pediatric intensive care 5 doc tor te sti fi ed tha t sh e tho ught

I sa iah w oul d have be entr ap pe d f or “ a m ini m um of 6 six to twelve hours.” Th e doctors agreed that it w as extrem ely rar e to see 7 co m pa rtm en t sy

ndr om e in a

c hil d. 8 { 9} Isaiah underwe nt a fasciotom

y , which is a surgery

perform ed by

slicing op en 9 the legs, re m ovin g the dead m uscle tissu e, and leaving th e swollen m uscles expos ed 10 out sid e of

the ski n un til the m

usc le s re ce de ba ck

int o th ei r re spe ct ive c om pa rtm en ts. 11 Once the m

uscles recede, skin grafts are required to replace the skin th at w as rem oved 12 dur ing the f

as ci oto m y . I sa iah ne ed ed

aw al ke r to h el p hi m

w al k f or som e tim e an d 13 his lower legs w ill be disfigu red for the rest of his life. 14 { 10} D r. Be st r ep orte d D ef en da nt t o th e au tho ri tie s f

or pot en tia l c hil d a

buse be ca use 1 5 al t h o u g h D e f

e n d a n tw a s p o l i t e , D r . B e s tt h o u g h tD e f e n d a n t ’ s r e a c t i o n t o h e r

c h i ld 16 be ing in suc h se ri ous co ndi tio n w as too ca sua l. D ef en da nt w as in di ct ed f

or 17 negligent ly

causing, or in the alternative, negligent ly perm itting Isaiah to be placed 18 in a sit ua ti on whi ch e ndange re d hi s li fe or he al th, w he n D ef

en da nt k ne w or sho uld6

1 h av e k n o wn o f th e d an g er i n v o l v ed an d ac t ed wi t h re ck l es s d i s re g ar df o rIs ai ah ’s 2 safety , in violation o f Se ction 30 -6-1(D ). 3 { 11} A tt r i a l t h e S t a t e ab a n d o n e d t h e c o u n t f o r n e g l i g e n t l y ca usi ng

c hil d a buse a nd 4 p u r s u e dt h e c o u n tf

o r n e g l i g e n t l y pe rm itt ing child a buse. T he district court instructed 5 t h e j u ry t h a ti f i t h a d a r e a s o n ab l e d o ub ta s t o w h e t h e r D e f e n d a n tc o mmi t t e dt h e c r i me 6 of negligentlyperm itting child abuse resultin g in great bo d i l y harm , then the j ury 7 shou ld consid er the c rim e of abandonm ent resulting in great bodi ly harm

. The j ury 8 re tur ne d ave rd ic t f

ind ing D ef

en da nt g uil ty

of aba ndon m en t. 9 DISC US SION 10 { 12} The question we m ust address is whether th e evidence w as sufficient to convict 11 D ef en da nt of ab an donm en t re sul tin g in gr ea t bodi ly ha rm . T he an swer to this 12 que stion d ep en ds o n th e sc ope int en de d by the L eg isl at

ur e fo r the c ri m e of 13 ab an do nm en t. Sta te v . R ow el l , 1995 -N MS C- 079, ¶ 8, 121 N
. M. 111, 908 P. 2d 1 379 14 (“ T he m ai n go al of

statut or y c ons tru ct io n is to giv e ef fe ct to the int en t of

the 15 le gi sl atur e.”). “ Que st io ns of s ta tu to ry in te rp ret at io n a re re vi ewedde no vo . . . .” 16 Stat e v . Tafoya , 2 01 2- N MS C- 030, ¶ 11, 285 P
. 3d 6 04. A c ri m ina l st at ute m ust be 17 str ic tly

c onstru ed

a nd “ m ay

not be appl ie d be y ond its int en de d sc ope [ fo r] it is a 18 funda m en ta l r

ule of c onst itu tio na l l awthat c ri m es m ust be de fi ne d w ithappr opr ia te7

1 definiteness.” State v. Chavez , 2009 -N MS C- 035, ¶ 10, 146 N
. M. 434, 211 P
. 3d 8 91 2 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he re fo re , w e w ill not r ea d a 3 cr im ina l st at

ute to ap ply to par

tic ular co nduc t “ unl es s th e le gis la tiv e pr osc ri pti on i s 4 plain.” State v. B

ybee , 198 9- N MC A -0 71, ¶ 12, 109 N
. M. 44, 781 P
. 2d 3 16 ( ci tin g 5 U nit ed Sta tes v . Sc harton , 285 U
. S. 518 ( 1932 )). “ W e ar e ge ne ra lly unw ill ing to 6 co nstru e one pr ovi sio n of astatut e in a

m an ne r tha t w oul d m ak e oth er pr ovi sio ns null 7 or superfluous.” Sta te v . R iv era , 200 4- N MS C- 001, ¶ 18, 134 N
. M. 768 , 82 P
. 3d 9 39. 8 { 13} Section 30-6-1(B) def ines “ abandonm ent” as a “ parent, guardian or custod ian 9 of a ch ild int en tio na lly le av ing or ab an doni ng the ch ild unde r ci rc um stanc es w he re by 10 the child m ay

or does suffer neglec t.” Ne glect m eans that a chil d is without p roper 1 1 p ar en t al ca re an dco n t ro l n ec es s ar y fo r th e ch i l d ’s we l l -b ei n g , in cl u d i n g t h e c h i l d ’s 12 he al th, e duc at ion , or subs ist en ce . S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (A )( 2)

. T he statut e doe s no t de fi ne 13 “ leaving or abandon ing.” See § 3 0 -6 -1 . Th u s , t o d et er mi n e w h et h erDe fe n d an t ’s 14 co nvi ct ionw as sup porte d by suf fi ci en t e vid en ce , w e m

ust f ir st e xa m ine the sc ope of 15 Se ct ion30- 6- 1( B) , a nd i n part ic ular, m ust f or the fi rs t tim e as ce rt ai n th e de fi nit ion s 16 of “ leaving” and “ abandoni ng” as they are used in Section 30-6-1(B). 17 { 14} T he Co urt of Ap pe al s r ef er re d to B lac k’

s L awD ic tio nary fo r the de fi nit ion s of 18 “ l ea v e” an d “ abandonm ent” because w hat constitu tes leaving or abandon ing un der8

1 Sect io n 3 0- 6- 1 i s a m at te r of fir st im pr es si on in New Mex ic o. St e p he nson , 201 5- 2 NMCA-0 38 , ¶ 15
. B lac k’ s L awD ic tio nary(9 t h ed . 2 0 0 9 ) d ef i n es “ l ea v e” as “ [t ]o 3 de pa rt ; vo lun tari ly

go aw ay ” or

“ [t ] o de pa rt

w ill fu lly w ith the int en t not to r et urn ,” 4 id. at 973 (e m

pha sis ad de d) , an d “ ab an donm en t” as “ [t ] he re lin qui shi ng of a ri ght or 5 int er es t w ith the int en tio n of ne ve r re claim ing

it , ” or “ [t ] he a ct of le av ing aspo use or 6 ch ild w ill fu lly a nd w i th o u t

a n i n t e n t

t o r e tur n ,” id. a t 2 (e m ph as is ad de d)

. See 7 Ste phe nson , 201 5- N MC A -0 38, ¶ 15. T he Co urt of

App eal s al so c om

pa re d th e 8 diction ary

defin ition s of “ abandonm ent” with definitions prov ided by legal 9 en cy cl ope dia s and co nc lud ed tha t al l de fi nit ion s of “ ab an donm en t” r equir e de se rt ing 10 th e ch il d wi th th e in te nt to ne ve r ret ur n. S e e St e p h en son , 2015- N MC A -0 38, ¶ 16. 11 T he Co urt of

Appe al s di d no t di sc uss the de fi nit ionof “ le av ing ” at le ngth, nor

did it 12 ad dr es s th e d is

jun ct iv e n atur e o f “ le av in g o r ab an do ni ng ” in Sect io n 3 0- 6- 1( B). See 13 Ste phe nson , 201 5- N MC A -0 38, ¶ ¶ 15- 16. W e co nc lud e tha t a pr inc ipl ed

dis tin ct ion 14 exists between “ leaving” and “ abandoni ng,” and th eref ore, to avoid rendering either 1 5 wo rd s up er fl u o u s , e ac h wo rd m u s tb e c o n s t ru ed co n s i s t en twi t h t h e L eg i s l at u re ’s 16 int en t, w hic h w as to cr ea te indep en de nt the or ie s of c ri m ina l c ulp ab ili ty

f or both 17 “ le av in g” an d “ ab an do ni ng .” 18 The L egisl at u r e i n t e n d e d “ l e av i n g” i n Sec tion 30-6-1(B) to cre ate an ind epen dent 19 th eo ry of

c ri m in al c ul pa bi lit y d ist in ctf ro m “ab an do ni ng ”9

1 { 15} W e m

ust int er pr et c ri m ina l sta tu te s co nsi ste nt w iththe pur pose of the 2 l eg i s lation and th e evils soug ht to be addressed bygivin g legislativ e language a 3 reas on ab le an d c omm on -s en se co ns tru ct io n. State v . Morales , 20 10 -NMSC -0 26 , ¶ 4 13, 148 N. M. 305, 236 P. 3d 24

. The purpose of Se ction 30 -6-1 is to protect children 5 fro m ha rm . Se e Sta te v . L uja n , 198 5- N MC A -1 11, ¶ 16, 103 N
. M. 667 , 712 P
. 2d 1 3. 6 { 16} T o a sc er

ta in the c om

m on- se nse m eanin g of the te rm s “ le av e” a nd “ ab an don” 7 in Sect io n 3 0- 6- 1, we t ur n t o t he di ct io na ry forgu id an ce. Se e Sta te v . Sego tta , 8 19 8 3 -N M SC -092, ¶ 8, 100 N.M. 498, 672 P.2d 1129 (“ W e, as other courts, of ten 9 m ak e re fe re nc e to d ic tio na ri es a nd t o th e ca se law to det er m ine the pr oba

ble 10 le gis la tiv e int en t i n us ing apart ic ular w or d. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 11 om itt ed ))

. T he de fi nit ion s of “ le av e” th at a re c onsi ste nt w iththe int en t of the 1 2 l e g i s l a t i o n a r e “t o t a k e l e a v e o f o r w i t h d r a w o n e s e l f

f r o m wh et he r temp orar ilyor 13 pe rm ane ntl

y : g o a w a y o r

d e p a rtf r o m” a n d“t o c au s e t o b e o r r e ma i n i n s o me 14 specified conditio n.” W eb ste r’ s T hird N ewI nte rnat ion al D ic tio naryof the E ngl ish 15 Langua ge Unabridged 128 7 ( 1971 ) (e m

pha sis ad de d)

. T he de fi nit ionof “ ab an don” 1 6 t h a ti s c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h e i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i s “ t o f o r s a k e o r d e s e rt[ e s p e c i a l l y] 17 in s pit e of

a n al le gianc e, duty , or

r es pons ibi lity : w ith dr awone ’ s pr ote ct ion , sup port, 18 or he l p f

r om .” W

ebste r’ s T hird N ewI nte rnat ion al D ic tio naryof the E ngl ish10

1 Langua ge Unabridged

2 (1971). Aj uror rely ing on the ordinary m eaning of t he word 2 “ ab an don” c oul d re as ona bly co nc lud e tha t for a par en t t o a ba ndonac hil d, he or

she 3 m ust have left the child with the intent of never returning. T he State argues that 4 ad din g an in te nt n ev er to re tur n e ve n to the w or d “ ab an don” doe s no t m ak e se nse 5 be ca use the statut e al so a

ppl ie s to som eo ne w ho i s te m por ar ily res ponsibl e fo r the 6 care a nd p ro te ct ionof

the c hil d. W e ag re e tha t i f the pur pose of the statut e is the 7 pr ot ect io n o f ch il dr en , Lu jan , 198 5-NMC A- 111, ¶ 1 6, it shou ld not m atter w hether 8 the de fe ndant w as pe rm an en tly or te m por ar ily r es pons ibl e fo r the c ust ody a nd c ontro l 9 of the c hil d. H ow ev er , the L eg isl at ur e ad dr es se d th is con cer n by e lim ina tin g any 10 am big uity w ithr es pe ct

to the pur

pose of i ts legis la tio n and the e vil it sou ght to 11 address—ex p o sing th e w ell-being of a child to harm —by m aking it a crim e for a 12 pe rs on w ho has cu sto dy an d contro l of the ch ild to ei the r te m

por ar ily or pe rm an en tly 13 le av e the c hil d w ith out the c ontro l and p ro te ct ionne ce ssary to pr even t ha rm

to the 1 4 c h i l d

. S e c t i o n3 0

- 6

- 1 ( B ) c r i mi n a l i z e s e i t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l l y “ le av ing ”—even 1 5 t e mp o r a r i l y— o r

i n t e n t i o n a l l y “ aban doni ng ” a c hild, b u t o nly under circum stances 16 w he re doi ng s o e xpos es the c hil d to ar isk of ha rm , whe the r to the c hil d’ s he al th, 17 educ at io n, orsu bs is te nc e. Se e id. ( em pha sis a dde d)

. W e hol d th at apare nt, guard ian, 18 or custodian who sim

ply departs from

the child does not vi olate the statute unless at11

1 the tim e the pare nt, g uardian, or custodi an departs from the child, t he circum stances 2 a r e s u c h t h a tt h e c h i l d ’s w e l l

- b e i n g i s a tr i s ko f h a rm. 3 Th e ev id en ce was no t su ff ic ie ntt o f

in d D ef en da ntgu ilt y of

le avi ng or 4 ab an do ni ng h er c hi ld 5 { 17} T he Co urt of Appe al s co nc lud ed tha t the ev ide nc e did not supp ort t he gu il ty 6 v e r d i c to f ab a n d o n me n tb e c au s e a l t h o u g h D e f e n d a n tl o c k e dI s a i a h i n h i s b e d r o o m, 7 she r em ai ne d inthe apa rtm en t, a nd the re fo re the S ta te did not pr ove tha t D ef en da nt 8 le ft Is ai ah wit ho ut an in te nt to ret ur n. Ste phe nson , 2015 -N MC A -0 38, ¶ 23. W e ha ve 9 al re ady he ld tha t the St at e doe s no t have to pr ove that D ef en da nt l ef t I sa iah w iththe 10 intent no t to return. The question is whether there wa s sufficient ev i d en ce fo r a 11 reasonable j uror to find that Defe ndan t intentio nally left I saiah at a tim e and under 1 2 ci rc um s t a n c e s w h e n I s a i a h ’ s w e l l

- b e i n g w a s a t r i s k o f h a rm . W e m u s t v i ew the 13 ev ide nc e in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the ve rd ic t, ind ul gi ng all pe rm iss ibl e 14 inference s in favor of the verdict an d d i s re g arding all evidence and inferences 15 op po se d t o t he ve rd ic t. Sta te v . T re adw ay , 2006 -N MS C- 008, ¶ 7, 139 N
. M. 167 , 130 16 P. 3d 7 46. W e w ill not “ w ei gh the e vid en ce or

sub sti tut e [o ur ] j udgm en t f or that of 17 the fact f

inder as long as there is sufficient evidence to supp ort the verdict.” State v. 18 M ora , 19 97 -NMSC -0 60 , ¶ 27 , 12 4 N.M. 3 4 6 , 95 0 P .2d 78 9, abro gated on other 19 grou nds by Kersey v. Hatch , 201 0- N MS C- 020, ¶ 17, 148 N
. M. 381 , 237 P
. 3d 6 83.12

1 { 18} W e pr ef

ac e our dis cu ssi on o f the suf

fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e by re vis iti ng the 2 relev an t pr oc ed

ur al his tor

y of thi s c as e. D ef

en da nt w as ind ic te d f

or ne gli ge ntl y 3 ca usi ng, or in the a lte rn at ive , ne gli ge ntl y pe rm itt ing I sa iah to be pla ce d in a sit ua tio n 4 w hic h en da nge re d hi s li fe or he al th, w he n D ef

en da nt k ne w or sho uld ha ve kno w n of 5 the dange r inv olv ed

a nd a ct ed

w ithr ec kle ss d isr eg ar d f or I sa iah’s sa fet y , both in 6 violatio n of Section 30-6-1(D). Causing and p erm itting child abuse are tw o disti nct 7 le ga l co nc ep ts . Sta te v . L ea l , 198 6- N MC A -0 75, ¶ 14, 104 N
. M. 506 , 723 P
. 2d 9 77. 8 “ ‘ [P ] er

m it’ r ef er s to the p rosc ri be d a ct , the pa ssi ve a ct of a llo w ing the abuse to 9 occur. ” Id

. ¶ 1 9
. “[ C] ausi ng

ch il d abu se is syno nym ou s wi th in fli ct in g t he ab us e.” 10 Sta te v . Ni ch ols , 201 6- N MS C- 001, ¶ 33, 363 P. 3d 1187
. Whe n th e en da nge rm en t i s 11 al le ge dly

ba se d onm ed ic al ne gle ct , the appr opr ia te the or y is ca usi ng

the child’ s life 12 orhe al th to be en da ng ered by m ed ic al ne gl ect . Id

. ¶ 35. 13 { 19} D u r i n g t r i a l t h e S t a t e ab a n d o n e d t h e c o u n t f o r n e g l i g e n t l y ca usi ng

c hil d a buse 1 4 a n d p u r s u e d t h e c o u n tf o r n e g l i g e n t l y pe rm itt ing ch ild ab use . T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso 15 ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y on a ba ndon m en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt gave thi s in str uc tio n, de spi te 16 the f ac t tha t nei the r pa rty be lie ve d th at aba ndon m en t i s atr

ue le sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse 17 of pe rm itt ing c hil d a

buse

. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onsi de re d th e ins tr uc tio n be ca

use 18 D ef en da nt arg ue d th at pu rs ua nt t o Sta te v . D ark is , sh e was en ti tl edto a st ep -d own13

1 i n s t ru ct i o n o n t h e l es s ero ff en s e o f ab an d o n m en t b ec au s e th e ev i d en ce an d t h e S t at e’s 2 th eo ry fit th atcri m e. See 2000 -N MC A -0 85, ¶¶ 14- 20, 129 N
. M. 547 , 10 P.3d 871 3 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t Sta te v . M ea dors , 1995 -N MS C- 073, ¶ 12, 121 N
. M. 38, 908 P
. 2d 4 731 pr ovid es th e te st f or de te rm ini ng w he n ac ourt sh oul d gr an t the S ta te ’ s r eque st 5 fo r a n i n s t ru ct i o n o n a l es s er -i n c l u d e do ff en s e, an dco n cl u d i n g t h at “ a d ef en d an t ’s 6 right to a less er-included offense instruction is effectively greater than the State’ s”). 7 T h e d i s t r i c t c o u rta g r e e dwi t h De f e n d a n ta n dg r a n t e dh e r

r e qu e s tt o g i v e t h e ju ry a 8 ste p- dow n in str

uc tio n f ro m pe rm itt ing c hil d a

buse to ch ild

aba ndonm en t. Be ca

use 9 ne ith er party ch al le nge s the dis tr ic t cour t’ s rul ing tha t D ef

en da nt w as e nti tle d to the 10 abandonm ent instructio n, w e do not decide that iss ue here. 11 { 20} T he dis tr ic t c ourt ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y tha t t o f ind D ef en da nt g uil ty

of ne gli ge ntl y 12 pe rm itt ing c hil d abus e re sul tin g in gr ea t bodil y ha rm , the S ta te ha d to pr ove be y ond 13 a re as ona

ble doubt t

ha t: 14 1. T he D efen da nt p er m itt ed I sa iah Apoda ca

to be pla ce d ina 15 situatio n which endangered the life or health of Isaiah Apodaca; 16 2. T he D efend ant a ct ed w ithr ec kle ss d isr eg ar d. T o f ind that the 17 D ef

en da nt a ct ed

w ithr ec kless di sre ga rd , y ou m ust f ind that the 18 De fendant knew or sho u l d h av e k nown that her failure to act 19 crea ted a su b s t an tial and foreseea ble risk, that she disregarded 20 that risk and that she wa s wholly indifferent to the consequences 21 of her f ailure to act, and to the welfare and safety of Isaiah 22 Apodaca;14

1 3. T he D ef

en da nt w as apare nt, guard ian or c us todia n of

the c hil d, 2 o r t h e D e f en d an th ad ac ce p t ed re s p o n s i b i l i t y fo r t h e c h i l d ’s 3 we lfare ; 4 4. T he D ef

en da nt’ s f

ai lur e to act r es ult ed

in gr ea t bo dil y

harm to 5 Isaiah Apodaca; 6 5. Is ai ahApoda ca w as und er

the a ge of

18; a nd 7 6. T his ha

ppe ne d inN ewMe xic o onor be tw een the 27th day

of 8 January

201 0 and the 28th day

of January 201 0. 9 { 21} T he S ta te ’ s ul tim at e the or y of the c as e w as tha t a lth oughthe dr es se r fa lli ng o n 10 Is ai ahw as a n a cc ide nt, D efen da nt ’s f ai lur e to r es pond

to the c ri es a nd s cr eam s th e 11 doc tor s w ould ha ve e xpe ct ed f ro m I sa iah is w ha t pe rm itt ed

I sa iah to be pla ce d ina 1 2 s i tu at i o n t h at en d an g er ed h i s l i fe o r h e a l t h . Ac co rd i n g t o t h e S t at e, De fe n d an t ’s 13 fai lu re t o a ctwas wi th reck le ss di sr eg ardbe cau se sh e kne w or s ho ul d h av e kno wn 14 that her failure to act cr eated a substantial and foreseeable risk to I saiah. W e note that 1 5 this in st ru ct i o n t ra ck ed UJ I 1 4 -6 0 3 NM RA (2 0 1 0 , wi t h d ra wn ef fe ct i v e April 3, 2015). 16 In Sta te v . Co nsau l

we rec ently called into quest ion th e legal ac curacy of the uniform 17 j ur y ins tr uc tio ns f or c ri m es und er

S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 , see 20 14-N MS C- 030, ¶ 35, 332 18 P.3 d 85 0, and th e in st ru ct io n has si nc e be en m od ifi ed by UJI 14

- 6 1 5 NM R A. 19 H ow ev er , w e ne ed not ad dr es s thi s co nc er n be ca use the j ur

y did not f ind D ef en da nt 20 guilt y under the State’ s theory

that she negligen tly

perm itted child abu se.17 If

c hil d a ba ndon m en t i s a le ss er-in cl ude d of fe nse of ne gli ge ntl y

pe rm itt ing 1 18 ch ild abuse , a n is sue w e do no t de ci de , the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t i s an im

pli ci t a cquit ta l of 19 ne gl ig en tl y

pe rm it ti ng ch il d abu se . Se e Sta te v . M edina , 197 5- N MC A -0 33, ¶ 8, 87 20 N
. M. 394 , 534 P
. 2d 4 86 ( ci tin g Sta te v . G oods on , 1950-NMS C- 0 2 3 , ¶ 9, 54 N .M. 21 184, 217 P
. 2d 2 62 ( sta tin g th at it is w el l se ttl ed

in N ewMe xic o th at

ac onvi ct ionof 22 a lesser- included o ffense is an im plicit acquittal of a greater offense))

. 15 1 { 22} T he dis tr ic t c our t i nstru ct ed the j ur

y that i f it ha d ar ea sona

ble doubt a s to 2 w he the r D ef

en da nt c om

m itt ed the c ri m e of

ne gli ge ntl ype rm itt ing c hil d a buse 3 re sul tin g ingr ea t bo dil y harm , the n th e j ur

y sho uld co ns id er the c ri m e of 4 ab an donm en t re sul tin g in gr ea t bodi ly ha rm . W e pr es um e tha t the j ur y f oll ow ed thi s 5 in st ru ct io n, se e B rit ton v. Boul don , 197 5- N MS C- 029, ¶ 6, 87 N
. M. 474 , 535 P
. 2d 6 1325 , a nd be ca

use the j ur

y pr oc ee de d to f

ind D ef en da nt g uil ty

of aba ndon m en t, the 7 j ur y ha d a re as ona

ble doub t as to w he the r D ef en da nt ne gli ge ntl y pe rm itt ed ch ild 8 abuse. 1 9 { 23} T he di s t r i c tc o u rti n s t r u c t e dt h e j u ry

t h a tt o f

i n dD e f e n d a n tg u i l t y

of 10 ab an donm en t of a ch ild r es ult ing in gr ea t bo dil y

harm , the S ta te ha d to pr ove be y ond 11 a re as ona

ble doubt t

ha t: 12 1. Jennifer Stephenson was a par ent of Isaiah Apodaca; 1 3 2
. J e n n i f

e r S t e p h e n s o n i n t e n t i o n a l l y left or aba ndon ed Isaiah 14 Apodaca; 15 3. A s a re sul t of Je nni fe r St ep he nson ’ s le av ing or a band oni ng Isaiah 16 Apoda ca , I sa iah Apoda ca w as w ith out

pr ope r pa ren ta l c ar e an d16

1 co ntr ol n ec es sary f or I sa iah Apoda ca ’ s w el l- be ing ; 2 4. Jennifer Stephenson had the ab i l i ty to provid e proper pare ntal 3 care a nd c ontro l ne ce ssary f or I sa iah Apoda ca ’ s w el l- be ing ; 4 5. Jennifer Stephenson’ s failure to p ro v ide proper parental car[e] 5 an d contro l nec es sary fo r Is ai ahApoda ca ’ s w el l- be ing r es ult ing 6 in great bodilyharm to Isaiah Apodaca; 7 6. Is ai ahApoda ca w as und er

the a ge of

18; 8 7. T his ha

ppe ne d inN ewMe xic o onor be tw ee n the 27th and 2 8th 9 da y s of

January 201 0. 10 (Em ph as is ad de d.) 11 { 24} T he S ta te c ont en ds tha t th e “ m ost r ea sona ble inf er en ce f ro m the e vid en ce is 12 tha t D ef

en da nt le ft the ap ar

tm en t, le av ing Is ai ah al one , fo r the fi rs t pa rt of the e ve nin g 13 an d ni ght , inc lud ing the ti m e pe ri od w he n th e dr es se r fe ll on I sa iah’ s legs

. ” T he S ta te 14 as se rt s th at

D ef en da nt d id n ot t es tif

y , and the re fo re h er w he re ab out s are not 15 ac co unt ed

f or unt il A nth ony

a rr ive d a t 2: 00 a
. m . The St at e furthe r ex pla ins that the 16 re as ona

ble inf er en ce tha t De fe ndant le ft Is ai ah al one in the ap ar tm en t i s su

ppor te d by 17 the te sti m ony

of m ult ipl e doc tor s w ho w oul d have expe ct ed I sa iah to sc re am , a nd 18 the re fo re Is ai ah m

ust ha ve sc re am ed , onl y qui et ing thr oughe xhaust iona nd d es pa ir 19 once he rea lized that his scream s wer e fu t i le. Beca use Def endant did not hear 20 sc re am s, the S ta te a rg ues th at the r ea sona

ble inf er en ce is tha t sh e w as not in the17

1 ap ar tm en t. T he S ta te a lso c ont en ds tha t e ve n if D ef en da nt did no t le av e the 2 ap ar tm en t, she sti ll le ft

I sa iah un at te nde d w hil e he w as sc re am ing

. 3 { 25} D ef

en da nt c ite s Sta te v . V

igi l , 197 5- N MS C- 013, ¶

12, 87 N
. M. 345 , 533 P
. 2d 4 578 fo r the pr opos iti on tha t m er e spec ul ationc an not sup port a

gui lty ve rd ic t, a nd 5 co nte nds tha t it is p ur e spe cu la tio n th at she le ft I sa iah a lon e in the apa rtm en t. 6 D ef en da nt al so note s that the j ur y w as ins tr

uc te d not to dr aw an y

inf er en ce s f ro m the 7 fa ct tha t sh e did

not te sti fy , a nd the j ur

y is pr es um ed

to fo llo w j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns. 8 De fendant em

phasizes that Anthonydid no t hear I saiah scream , and argues that Isaiah 9 lik el y did not sc re am dur ing the nig ht b ec au se c om pa rtm en t sy

ndr om e ta ke s a 10 co nsi de ra

ble a m ount

of ti m e to b ec om e pa inf

ul. 11 { 26} W e co nc lud e tha t the re w as not suf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or ar ea sonable juro r to 12 fi nd tha t a t the ti m e D ef en da nt p ut I sa iah in his be dr oom , int en tio na lly de pa rt ing f

ro m 13 him , the ci rc um stanc es w er e suc h that Is ai ah ’ s we ll- be ing w as at ri sk of ha rm . T he 14 St at e’ s c ont en tio n th at the ev ide nc e supp orts a re as ona ble inf er en ce tha t D ef

en da nt 15 left the apartm ent i s n o t t i ed to the facts in the case, and is therefore speculative. 16 “ ‘ [E ] vid en ce f

ro m w hic h apr opos iti on c anbe de ri ve d on ly by spe cu la tio n a m ong 17 equally

plausibl e alter

natives is not subs tantial evidence of the proposit ion.’ ” Sta te 18 v. Sla de , 2014 -N MC A -0 88, ¶ 14, 331 P
. 3d 9 30 ( quot ing B ac a v . B ue no F oods , 198 8-18

1 NMCA-1 12 , ¶ 15 , 10 8 N.M. 9 8, 7 66 P.2d 13 32 ), cert. gran ted , 201 4- N MC E RT -0 08, 2 cert. quas hed , 201 5- N M C E R T
- 001. T he e vid en ce be fo re the j ur y w as tha t D ef

en da nt 3 p u tI s a i a h t o b e df

o r t h e n i g h ta n dl o c k e d

h i s b e d r o o m d o o r . A c c o r d i n g t o An t h o n y, 4 he an d D ef

en da nt e xc ha nge d nu m er ous te xt m es sa ge s th ro ugho ut the nig ht, a nd 5 D ef en da nt e ve ntu al ly

inv ite d hi m to spe nd the nig ht w ithhe r onc e he got of f w ork. 6 InD ef en da nt’ s st at em en t t o th e pol ic e, she state d th at she did not he ar a ny sc re am ing 7 or c ry ing f ro m I sa iah th at

nig ht. A nth on y also t es tif ie d th at he did not he ar a ny 8 sc re am ing or

c ry ing

. 9 { 27} D ef

en da nt d ep ar

te d fr om Is ai ah the m om en t she put him in his r oom . T he re is 10 no e vid ence tha t the dr es se r tha t ha d be enin Is ai ah ’ s r oom f or m onths w as w obbl y 11 or unsteady , or that he had clim bed on the dresser in the past. T here is no evidence 12 tha t I sa iah’ s w el l- be ing w as in j eo pa rdy if he w as le ft al one in his ro om to go t o sl ee p. 13 During closing argum ents, the State em phasized that Isaiah had to h av e b een 14 sc re am ing a nd D ef

en da nt i gnor ed him

. H ow ev er , thi s evid en ce is re le va nt o nly to the 15 questio n of whether De fendant perm itted Isaiah to be in a situatio n that endangered 16 his he al th o r lif

e, w hic h th e j ur

y de te rm ine d sh e did

not . I t i s no t r el ev an t t o 17 D ef en da nt p la ci ng I sa iah inhis r oom f or the nig ht. 18 { 28} O ur

r ev ie w of

the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce ta ke s in to a cc ount “ both th e19

1 j ury ’ s fundam ental role as f actfinder” and our ind ependent respons ibilityto ensure 2 that a j ury ’ s convictio n of a defe ndant is suppo rted “ by evidence in the recor d, rather 3 than m ere guess or conjecture .” State v. F lores , 201 0- N MS C- 002, ¶ 2, 147 N
. M. 542 , 4 226 P. 3d 6 41. I n th is c as e, w e co nclu de tha t the re w as not suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to 5 supp ort the c onvi ct ionf or ch il d ab an donm en t. B ec au se the c ri m e of le av ing or 6 ab an doni ng a

c hil d is at a m ini m

um a m isd em eanor , a nd p oss ibl y af el ony if the c hil d 7 suffers gre at bodilyharm or death, and we have noted th at by cre ating crim inal 8 liabilityunder Section 30-6-1, “ the Le gislature did not intend to crim inalize conduct 9 crea ting ‘a

m ere poss ibility , how ever r em ote, that harm m ay result’ to a child,” Sta te 10 v. G raha m , 20 05 -NMSC -0 04 , ¶ 9, 1 37 N.M. 19 7, 10 9 P.3d28 5 (c it at io n o m it te d) , we 11 cannot

a ff irm D ef en da nt’ s c onvi ct ion

. I nde ed , to upho ld D efend an t’ s c onvi ct ion 12 co uld pot en tia lly

c ri m ina liz e pa re nts ’ a ctio ns ev er y sin gle ti m e the y

tuc k th ei r 13 ch ildre n in to b ed an d ha rm be fa lls the ir ch ildre n at nig ht thr ough som e unf ortun at e 14 ac ci de nt, w hic h w e re fu se to do. 15 CON CLU SION 16 { 29} W e af

firm the result rea ched by

the Court of Appeals and rem and to the dis trict 17 co urt f

or e ntr y of aj udgm en t of

a cquit ta l. 18 { 30} IT IS S O ORDERE D.20

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ________

__ 2 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice 3 4 WE CONCUR:

5 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 6 CH ARLES W. DA NIEL S, Ch ief Justice

7 ___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 8 BA RBA RAJ. V IGIL, Just ice
9 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Justice, concu rring in p art and d issenting in p art 10 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice, joining in special conc urre nce and dissent21

1 Nak am ura, Justice ( concur ring in partand dissen ting in p art). 2 { 31} An ap p el l at e c o u rt ’s re v i ew o f w h e t h ers u ff i ci en tev i d en ce s up p o rt s a ju ry’s 3 verdict is settled: W e draw every reasonable infere nce in favor of the ver dict and then 4 ev al ua te w he the r the e vid en ce , so v ie w ed , sup ports the ve rd ic t be y ond a re as ona ble 5 do ub t. E

. g. , Sta te v . Ca ntr el l , 200 8- N MS C- 016, ¶ 26, 143 N
. M. 606 , 179 P
. 3d 1 214. 6 U nde r thi s st an da rd

of r ev ie w , a ratio na l j ur

y co uld ha ve f

ound be y ond a re as ona

ble 7 doub t tha t S te phe nsonvio la te d N MS A 1978, S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (B ) (2 009) by 8 int en tio na lly

le av ing I sa iah under

c ir cu m stanc es w he re by

I sa iah su ff

er ed ne gle ct . 9 A cc or din gly , I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt. 10 { 32} T he L eg isl at

ur e int en de d “ le av ing ” an d “ ab an doni ng” to cr ea te ind ep en de nt 11 theories of crim inal culpabili ty under Se ct i o n 30-6-1(B). T he m aj ority concludes 12 that, w hen enacting Section 30-6-1(B ), the Le gislature intend ed “ leaving” to reflect 13 its or din ar

y , dic tio na ry de fi nit ion s—i

. e. , fi rs t, “ ‘ to ta ke le av e of or w ith dr awone se lf 14 fro m whet he r te m

po rari ly or pe rm an en tl y : go away or de pa rt fro m ’ ” an d, se co nd , “ 15 ‘ to c au se to be or r em ai n insom e spe ci fi ed c ondi tio n. ’ ” Ma

j

. O p. , ¶ 16 ( quot ing 16 W ebster’s Third New Internat iona l Dictionary of the English Lan guag e U nabr idged 17 1287 ( 1971 ) (e m

pha sis om itt ed ))

. I ag re e tha t the L eg isl at ur e int en de d “ le av ing ” to 18 denote these diction ary definition s. I also agree that there wa s insu fficient evidence22

1 fo r the j ur

y to c onvi ct

und er the f ir st d ef ini tio n of “ le av ing ”: At th e ti me S te phe nson 2 pu tI sa i a h t o be d a nd l oc ke d t he d oo r , t he r e w a s no ts uf f i c i e nt evidence for a 3 reasonable j ury

to conclude that sh e left I saiah under circum stances in which h e m ay 4 ha ve suf

fe re d or did in fa ct suf fe r ne gle ct . 5 { 33} Ye t, I disagree w ith the m aj ority ’ s ultim ate conclusion th at there w as 6 insufficient evidence to sup port the jury ’ s finding that Stephenson intentio nally left 7 Is ai ahund er

c ir cu m stanc es w he re by

he suf fe re d ne gle ct . A t so m e poi nt d ur in g th e 8 nigh t , t he dr e ss e r f

e l l up on I sa i a h a nd pi nn e d hi s l e gs t o t he c r os sb a r of hi s todd ler 9 bed. S ufficient evidence w as presented at trial f o r a re as o n ab le j ury

to find that 10 Stephenson b oth apprehend e d that Isaiah wa s injured and int entionallyleft him in that 11 conditi on. In other words, Stephenson “ caused” Isaiah “ to r em ain in som e specified 12 co ndi tio n” —i

. e. , pin ne d unde rn ea th the dr es se r, e xpr es sin g hi s pa in, f or m an y , m an y 13 ho ur s. Leave , W

eb ste r’ s T hird N ewI nte rnat ion al D ic tio naryof the E ngl ish 14 Langua ge Unabridged 128 7 ( 1971 ))

. I n li ght

of thi s se co nd dic tio na ry de fi nit ionof 15 “ le av e, ” the L eg isl at

ur e co uld not ha ve int en de d the statut e to f oc us e xc lus ive ly

on 16 the m om en t a

pare nt o r guard ian in iti al ly de pa rt s f ro m ac hil d. T he statut e is al so 17 im pli ca te d w he re a pa rent

or guard ian kn ow s th at

ac hil d is in pe ri l ( ev enif in the 1 8 n e x t r o o m) a n di n t e n t i o n a l l y leaves tha t c hil d inpe ri l.23

1 { 34} Under the sec ond d ictionary definition o f “ leaving” that the Legislature 2 int en de d inS ec tio n 30-6 -1( B) , suf fi ci en t e vid en ce sup ports the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t. T he 3 jury heard tes ti m on y

reg ard in g t he gra ve an d abn or m al ex te nt of I sa ia h’s i nju rie s. As 4 a re sul t of

be ing tr ap pe d un de rn ea th the dr es se r, I sa iah su ff er ed c om pa rtm en t 5 syn d r o m e . T h e j u ry

h e a r dt e s t i m o n y

f r o m D r . D a l e H o e k s t r a , M
. D
. , a n o rt h o pe dic 6 sur ge on w ithU niv er sity of N ewMe xic o’ s C hil dr en ’ s H ospi ta l (U.N.M. H
. ) an d 7 m edical director of Carr ie T ingley Hospital in Albuquerque. D r. Hoekstra te stified 8 that com

partm ent syndrom e “ is a conditio n that arises as a r esult of a n i n ju ry to an 9 extrem ity , a lm ost inv ariably betwee n the knee and the ankle, in which the pre ssures 10 in the le g bu ild

up t o the poi nt tha t the blo od can no lon ge r supp ly the m usc le s in the 11 le g, an d the y start to die or ne cr ose . ” E le va te d cr ea tin e kin as e [“ CK”] lev el s in 12 Isaiah’ s bloo d indi cated that Isaiah suffe red fr om co m p ar t m en t syndrom e. D r. 13 Hoekstra testified that the norm al range fo r CK is betwe en 72 to 36 7 unit s, and at 14 9:57 a. m ., sh o rtl y

after his arrival, Isaiah’ s CK level wa s 36,605 un its, w hich 15 ind ic at ed

e xte nsi ve tr au m a tha t thr ea te ne d the loss of Is ai ah ’ s legs an d the fa ilure of 16 Is ai ah ’ s ki dne y s. B ec au se I sa iah ur ge ntl y ne ed ed the care of ape dia tr ic ne phr olo gis t, 17 pedi at ric sur ge ons, a nd p ed ia tr ic int en siv e care doc tor s, I sa iah w as a ir lif te d f ro m 18 Christus St. V incent Hospital in Santa Fe to U .N .M. H. in Albuquerque. O nce Isaiah24

1 arrived a t UNM H, h is CK peaked at 123,000 u nits. At UN MH, Dr . H oekstra 2 pe rf orm ed a n e m er ge nc y

f as ci oto m y on b othof

I sa iah’ s le gs and fou nd e xte nsi ve 3 da m ag e, in cl ud in g s om e ti ss ue de at h, i n Is ai ah ’s leg m us cl es . 4 { 35} The j ury

wa s also presented with evidence establishing that, in order f or Isaiah 5 to have developed such an extraordinarily hi g h CK level, I saiah had to have been 6 tr ap pe d und er th e dr es se r fo r ei ght to tw el ve hou rs . D r. H oe kstra opi ne d th at

the 7 ex te nt o f Is ai ah ’ s in

j ur ie s ind ic at ed

that I sa iah ha d be enpin ne d un de r the dr es se r fo r 8 “ at least tw elve hours.” Dr
. De nise C olem an, M.D ., a pediatric critical c are phy sician 9 at U
. N
. M. H
. , w ho obse rv ed Is ai ah im m ed ia te ly be fo re his sur ge ry , co ns ervativ el y 10 es tim at ed

tha t Isa iah wa s pinne d unde r the dr es se r fo r “ a m ini m um of six to tw el ve 11 ho ur s.” 12 { 36} T h e j u ry a l s o h e a r dt e s t i mo n y f r o m Stephens on’s expert w itness, Dr . S teven 13 Ga baeff, M.D ., who is board certifie d in em ergency m edicine and operates a clinical 14 fo re nsi c m ed ic al pr ac tic e. E ve n D r. G ab ae ff te sti fi ed tha t Isa iah’ s CK

le ve ls w er e the 15 h i g h es t he had ever seen and estim ated that Isaiah’ s “ m uscles had no oxy gen for a 16 very long ti m e to get that conditi on.” D r. Ga b aeff estim ated that Isaiah had been 17 pinn ed under the dresser f or four-and-a- half to eight hou rs, that “ [i] t could have been 18 a little longer even,” and that “ [b] ased on the [CK levels] going so high , [ he] tended25

1 to r ea lly

be lie ve that it wa s on the lon ge r sid e. ” D r. G ab ae ff furthe r opi ne d th at “ if 2 som ethin g ha

ppe n[ ed ] , say , a t 10 :30 or

11: 00 o r 11: 30, y ou know , w e’ re ta lki ng a bout 3 ei ght hou rs , a nd tha t se em s to m e to b e ab out w ha t I ’ d e xpe ct

. . . we al re ady

ha ve 4 num be rs tha t, y ou know , le ad

us i n adir ec tio n. ” T he re fo re , f ro m the e xpe rt

te sti m ony 5 presented by the State and byStephenson, the j ury wa s perm itted to find th at Isaiah 6 wa s underneath the dresser for e ight to twe l v e h o urs. C onsequ ently , the j ury wa s 7 p e rmi t t e dt o i n f

e r t h a t t h e d r e s s e r

f e l l o n I s a i a h b e t w e e n 1 0 : 3 0 p . m. a n d1 1 : 0 0 p . m. 8 an d r em ai ne d ontop of him unt il 7:0 0 a
. m . the ne xt m or nin g. 9 { 37} Critically , the j ury wa s presented with additional evid ence f rom which it w as 10 perm it t ed to infer the following two findings: First, Isaiah w ould have expressed 11 au dib le an d sus ta ine d ind ic at ion s of pa in. S ec ond, S te phe nsonw as both ho m e an d 12 aw ake througho ut the nig ht and int o the m o rn i n g, during the tim e that Isaiah w as 13 pin ne d and e xpr es sin g pa in. D r. Co le m ante sti fi ed tha t Isa iah w oul d have be enable 14 to scream

and that “ he would have been in pain f or a very long tim e. ” Dr . C olem an 15 further testified that the im pairm ent of blood flow in Isaiah’ s legs would have caused 16 him e xtr em e pai n and com

pa re d Isa iah’ s pain to the pa in o f ha vin g an art er ia l bl ood 17 clot. Dr
. Colem an refe renced her training in critical care in Seattle, wher e she car ed 18 fo r ch ildre n w ho h ad

be enpin ne d un de r fa lle n tr ee s duri ng the c our se of lum be ri ng26

1 acci de nt s, an d t es ti fie d, “ [I]t’s pa in fu l. Oft en ti m es , th e p ai n n ev er g oe s awa y . . . . I 2 can tel l you i t h ur t u nt il th ey co ul d g etI.V. pai n m ed s.” 3 { 38} A p o d a c a , I s a i a h ’s f a t h e r , t e s t i f

i e dt h a th e w o rk e dt h a tn i g h tf r o m 6 : 0 0 p . m. 4 unt il 1:2 5 a
. m . or

1:3 0 a
. m . a nd tha t h e re ce ive d te xt m es sa ge s f ro m S te phe nson 5 dur ing the “ w hol e tim e [h e] w as w orkin g” in w hic h S te phe nsoninv ite d Apoda ca to 6 co m e s p en dt h e n i g h twi t h h e r a t h e rap ar t m en t . Ap o d ac a w en tt o St ep h en s o n ’s 7 apartm ent after

he left w ork and arrived at approxim ately 2:00 a.m
. She w as hom e. 8 Upon Apodaca ’ s r eque st, S te phe nsonw en t t o M cD ona ld’ s to buy som e fo od. 9 St ep he ns on r et

ur ne d ho m e at

appr oxi m at el y

2:4 5 a
. m . Apoda ca

a ske d S te phe nson 10 to c he ck

on I sa iah at abo ut 3 :00 a . m . S te phe nsona nd Apoda ca the n a te , ha d se x, a nd 11 wen t t o s le ep at app ro xi m at el y 4: 00 a.m . or 4 :1 5 a .m . 12 { 39} Fr om

thi s e vid en ce, the j ur

y w as pe rm itt ed

to dr awr ea sona

ble inf er en ce s to 13 reac h its verdict. T he j ury wa s permit ted to rely on the m edical expert 14 te sti m ony

—and o n it s c om

m on sen se an d expe ri en ce —t o in fe r fr om the se ve ri ty

of 15 Is ai ah ’ s in

j ur ie s, c oupl ed

w iththe sho ck

a nd p ai n th at a fa lli ng dre sse r w oul d c au se 16 to a to ddler, that Isa iah cried and scre am ed loudl y , f or a prolonged du ration. T he j ury 17 w as pe rm itt ed

to inf er —ba se d on the e sti m at ion s of D oc tor s H oe kstra , Co le m an , a nd 18 G ab ae ff

—tha t duri ng the en tir e tim e fr om Apoda ca ’ s arr iva l t o th e tim e of the ir goi ng27

1 to s le ep , I sa iah w as pin ne d unde rn ea th a dr es se r, en dur ing an d ex pr es sin g his pa in. 2 Ba s ed o n t h o s e s ame e s t i m at i o n s , t h e ju ry wa s en t i re l y fr ee t o r ej ec tSt ep h en s o n ’s 3 af fi da vit te sti m ony

tha t sh e ch ec ke d onI sa iah a t 2:0 0 a. m . , an d th at he w as f ine

. T he 4 j ur y w as r athe r pe rm itt ed

to inf er that, giv en the se ve ri ty of Is ai ah ’ s inj ur ie s and the 5 copiou s m edical expert testim ony as to the cause of those injuries, at 2:00 a. m . Isaiah 6 w as pin ne d un d e r

t h e d r e s s e r . T h e j u ry

w a s a l s o p e r

m i t t e dt o r e l y

o n i t s c o m

m on 7 se ns e t o i n f

e r t h a t t h e t y

p e o f c ry i n g a n d s c r e a m i n g t h a t I s a i a h e x p r e s s e da s th e 8 dr es se r fe ll uponhim an d a s hi s m usc le ti ssu e w as dy ing w as abnor m al —di ff er en t i n 9 both ki nd and d

ur at ion fr om

the ty pe of c ry ing tha t a

f oll ow er of D r. F er be r’ s m ethod 10 of paren ti ng m ay

r ec ogni ze a s no rm al

. A nd the j ur y w as pe rm itt ed

to fi nd tha t i f 11 Isaiah had expressed his pain, Stephenson would h ave heard it. De tective Van Etten 12 te sti fi ed

tha t S te phe nson ’ s a

pa rtm en t w as sm al l, suc h th at “ an y body wou ld be ab le 13 to hear any

bodyfrom

one end of the apartm en t t o the other.” In sum , the j ury wa s 14 perm itted to fi n d t hat Stephenson in tention ally left I saiah under circum stances 15 whe reb y

he su ffer edne gl ect . 16 { 40} T he m aj or ity w or ri es tha t a de ci sio n w hic h upho lds the j ur y ’ s ve rdic t “ co uld 17 pot en tia lly

c ri m ina liz e pa re nts ’ a ct ion s e ve ry sin gle ti m e the y

tuc k th ei r ch ildre n in to 18 be d a nd ha rm be fal ls th ei r ch il dr en at n ig ht th ro ug h s om e u nf or tu na te acci de nt .” Maj.28

1 O p. , ¶ 28. Whil e I unde rs tand this co nc er n, I do not sha re it. T w o bulw ar ks p re ve nt 2 a de ci sio n upho ldi ng the j ur y ’ s ve rd ic t fr om

thr ea te nin g w el l- m eanin g pare nts w ith 3 cr im ina l lia

bil ity

. Fi rs t, to est ab lis h a viola tio n of Se ct ion 30- 6- 1( B) , the St at e m ust 4 pr ove tha t the c hil d is e xpos ed to neglect , w hic h is spe ci fi ca lly de fi ne d by S ec tio n 30

- 5 6-1(A) (2), and which clearly excludes crim inal liabilityfor ac ci d ental injuries that 6 befall children unbekno wnst to well- m eaning parents. Se cond, and m ore 7 fundam e nt a l l y , i ti s t he h a r d a nd j a gg e d f

a c t s of c a se s w hi c h pr e ve nt

l egal 8 co nc lus ion s f

ro m tum bli ng d ow n th e sli ppe ry

slo pe . F or

e xa m ple , in thi s c as e, the 9 jury hadm

uc h m or e to co ns id er tha n ju st th e sc en ari o o f a p aren t p ut ti ng a ch il d d own 10 to sleep for th e n ight, onlyto wake up in the m orning to discover that the child had 11 experienced som e inj ury as a r esult of an accident u nbekno wnst to the parent. He re, 12 the j ury

wa s perm itted to in fer th at Stephenson kn ewIsaiah w as suffer ing an 1 3 ab n o rmal d e g r e e o f p a i n b u t , n e v e rt h e l e s s , i n t e n t i o n a l l y le ft him in tha t c ondi tio n. 14 D raw ing e ve ry

r ea sona ble inf er en ce in favor of the ve rd ic t, as w e ar e re qui re d to do, 15 the j ur

y ha d su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to m ak e tha t f ind ing

. 16 { 41} A cc or din gly , I r es pe ct fu lly dis se nt.

17

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 18 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Justice29

1 I CONCUR:
2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 3 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice