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

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: D ec em be r 21, 201 7 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 5629 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 A L E J A N D R O R

A M I R E Z, 9 D ef

en da nt- Appe llant.
10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF SA N JU AN CO UN TY 11 Joh n A . D ea n, Jr . , D ist ri ctJu dg e
12 He ctor H . B alderas, Attorney Ge neral 13 Maris V eidem anis, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 McG arry

Law O ffice 17 Ka thleen McGarry 18 Glo rie ta , NM 19 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 NA KAM UR

A, Ch ief Justice . 3 { 1} A j u ry f

o u n d t h a t D e f

e n d a n t A l e

j a n d r o R a m i r e z s h o t an d k i l le d Jo hnny 4 Vialpando. R am irez w as convi ct ed o f s ev er al o ff en s es , i n cl u d i n g fi rs t -d eg re e m urder, 5 a n dth e d i s t r i c tc o u rts e n t e n c e dR a mi r e z t o l i f e i mp r i s o n men t p l u s a n a d d i t i o n a l s i x t y6 fi ve a nd o ne -h al f y ears . R am ir ez appe al s di re ct ly to thi s C ourt. H e as se rt s th at ( 1) 7 the re w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d to sup port hi s c onvi ct ion s; ( 2) his r igh t t o 8 due pr oc es s w as vio la te d wh en th e distri ct c ourt pe rm itt ed

se ve ra l e y ew itn es se s to 9 ide nti fy

him in co urt a s th e shoo te r; a nd (3) hi s convi ct ion s vi ola te d th e 10 doub le -j eo pa rdy

guarante e ag ai nst

m ult ipl e puni shm en ts. 11 { 2} W e hold that th e evidence is sufficient to support the convictio ns, the district 12 court did no t violate Ram irez’ s right to d ue process by allowing the in-court 13 ide nti fi ca tio ns, a nd d oubl e j eo pa rdy pr ec lud ed

the dis tr ic t co ur t fr om

c onvi ct ing 14 Ram ir ez of fi rs t- de gr ee m ur de r an d sh oot ing a t a

m oto r ve hic le

. W e ex am ine the uni t 15 of pr ose cu tio n f

or c hil d a buse by e ndange rm en t a s am at ter of fir st i m pr es sio n and 16 hol d th at

Ram ir ez ’ s m

ult ipl e ch ild

abuse c onvi ct ion s are statu to ril yauth or iz ed

. 17 Co nse que ntl y , w e va ca te onl y th e s h o o t i n g - at - a - m o t o r - v e h i c l e c o n v i c t iona nd r em an d 18 to the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or r es en te nc ing

.2

1 I. BACKGRO UND 2 { 3} V ia lpan d o w a s s h o tn i n e t i m e s w h i l e s i t t i n g i n av e h i c l e w i t h h i s s p o u s e a nd 3 three children and died from the injuries he su s t ai ned. T he State c harged Ram irez 4 w ithone c ount

of f ir st- de gr ee m

ur de r, N MS A 197 8, § 30 -2 -1 (A )( 1) ( 1994 ); on e c o unt 5 of c onsp ir ac y

to co m m it fi rs t- de gr ee m

ur de r, N MS A 1978 , § 30 -2 8- 2 ( 1979 ), § 30 -2

- 6 1(A) (1); one count of shoo ting at or f rom a m otor vehicle, NMS A 1978, § 30-3-8(B) 7 (1 993) ; thr ee c ount s of c hil d a buse , N MS A 1978 , § 30 -6 -1 (D ) (2 009) ; on e co unt of 8 ta m pering with evidence, NMS A 1978, § 30-22-5 (2003 ); one count of aggravated 9 as sault w ithade ad ly

w ea pon, N MS A 197 8, § 30-3 -2 (A) (1 963); a nd o ne c ount of 10 poss ession o f a f

irear m by a fe lon, NMS A 197 8, § 30-7-16 (200 1). Ram irez plea ded 11 not gui lty to al l of the se c ha rg es . 12 { 4} At Ram irez’ s trial, five ey ew itnesses testified that Ram irez w as t h e gunm an 13 w ho s hot

a nd k ill ed

V ia lpando, a nd h e w as f ound gui lty on a ll co unt s. T he S ta te 14 abandone d the felon-in-possessi on-of-a-f irear m count. T he district court entered 15 co nvi ct ion s onthe r em ai nin g c ount s and sente nc ed Ram ir ez . A rt ic le V I, S ec tio n 2 16 of the N ewMe xic o C onst itu tio n gr an ts u s e xc lus ive j ur isd ic tio n ov er his appe al

.3

1 II. DISC US SION 2 A. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 3 { 5} R a m i r e z c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e S t a t e f a i l e d“ t o p r e s e n ts u f

f i c i e n te v i d e n c e f

r om 4 w hic h th e j ur

y c oul d have f

ound be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t tha t [h e] c om

m itt ed the 5 crim es . . . .” Ram irez m akes several specif ic claim s as t o h o w t he evidence w as 6 ins uf fi ci en t. W e ad dr es s th es e ar gum en ts i n turnbut be gin by statin g th e standard s 7 th atgo ve rn ou r rev ie w. 8 { 6} When review ing a jury ’ s verdict for sufficie nt evidence, this Court determ ines 9 whether subs tantial evidence, either direct or cir cum stantial, exists to su pport every 10 el em en t ess en ti al to a co nv ic ti on be y on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Sta te v . G arc ia , 201 1- 11 N MS C- 003, ¶

5, 149 N
. M. 185, 246 P. 3d 1 057. “ E vid en ce is vie w ed in the li ght

m ost 12 favor ab le to the gui lty ve rd ic t, ind ulg ing al l re as ona

ble inf er en ce s and re sol vin g a ll 13 conflicts in the eviden ce in favor of the verdict. ” I d. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and 14 ci ta tio n om itt ed ). T his Co urt w ill not se co nd- gue ss the j ur y ’ s de ci sio n c onc er

nin g th e 15 cr ed ibi lity

of w itn es se s, r ew ei gh the ev ide nc e, or subs tit ute its j udgm en t fo r tha t of 16 th e jury. Id

. “ S o l o n g a s ar a t i o n a l ju ry co uld ha ve fo und be y ond a re as ona ble doubt 1 7 t h e e s s en t i al fa ct s re qu i re dfo r a co n v i ct i o n , [ t h i s Co u rt ] wi l l n o tup s et a ju ry’s 18 conclusio ns.” Id

. (internal quotation m arks and citations om itted).4

1 1. Ident ity evidenc e 2 { 7} Ram ire z co nt en ds th at “ th e ev id en ce of ide nt it y is in su ffi ci en t i n t hi s ca se .” He 3 cl ai m s th at

the j ur y c oul d no t have f

ound be y ond a re as ona

ble doub t tha t he w as the 4 shoo te r as the e y ew itn es s te sti m ony w as “ unr el ia

ble

. ” Be ca

use the re w as no r el ia

ble 5 e vi de nc e t o pr ov e t ha t he w a s t he sh oo t e r , R a m i r e z a ss e rt s, t he f i r st - de gree m

urder 6 convictio n—and any other convictio n necessarily predicated on the fac t that he was 7 the ind ivi dua l w ho s hot V ia lpando— “ cannot

stand. ” W e re

j ec t this li ne of

a rg um en t. 8 { 8} Vialpando’ s wife , Rhiannon , offer ed the following testim ony at trial. The day 9 of the shoot ing w as sunn y . In the m om ents imm ediately before the shooting , she w as 10 se at ed in th e dr iv er’s seat of

he r D odge D ur an go. V ia lpando w as in the f ro nt 11 pa sse nge r’ s se at . T w o o f the c hil dr en , Carm ena nd N ikk i, sa t i n th e ba ck se at . 12 Carm ensa t di re ct ly be hin d Vi al pa ndo. T he thi rd ch ild , Mi ch ae l, sa t in the thir d r ow 13 of seats. As R

hianno n wa s preparing to bac k out of their parking sp ot at the Anim as 14 Ma ll in F ar

m ing ton , Ne w M ex ic o, am anshe ha d no t se enbe fo re appr oa ch ed the 15 fro nt pa ss en ge r-s id e win do w of t he Dura ng o a nd be ga n s pe ak in g t o Vi al pa nd o. As 16 he ta lke d to V ia lpando, the m an loo ke d aro und, a voi de d e y e co nta ct w ithV ia lpando, 17 an d te xte d onhis c el l ph one . The co nve rs at ionla ste d a ppr oxi m at el y

f ive m inu te s. 18 The m an wa s very

sm all, H ispanic, and had shou lder-l en g th, curly hair. She a sked5

1 V ia lpando, “ Who i s th is?” V ia lpando re pli ed , “ L itt le Al ex .” Lit tle A le x a ske d f or 2 a ri de , but

she sa id n o. A w hit e Ch ev y Bl az er a br upt ly pul le d in be hin d the D ur an go 3 an d bl oc ke d it

f ro m m ovi ng. L itt le A le x in dic at ed tha t his br oth er

w as the dr ive r of 4 the Blazer and then wa lked to the driver’ s side of t he Blazer , spo ke with the driver, 5 an d r ec ei ve d an obj ec t f ro m the dr ive r. L itt le A le x th enw al ke d qu ic kly ba ck to the 6 p as s enger side of the D urango, said “ This is for G ary ,” and began firing a gun at 7 V ia lpando. Whil e the sho oti ng took pla ce , she w as onl y fo ur fe et fr om L itt le A le x. 8 She identified Ram irez a s “ Little A lex.” This w as the second tim e Rhiannon had 9 ide nti fi ed

Ram ir ez a s th e shoo te r. S he f ir st i de nti fi ed

him as th e shoo te r at

a 10 pr el im inary

he ar ing “ a w ee k or

tw o” a ft er

the sho oti ng. 11 { 9} O ff

ic er H ea the r Ch av ez te sti fi ed a t tri al tha t G ar

y Mart ine z w as m

ur de re d in 12 a dr ive -b y

sho oti ng i n F ar

m ing tonin 2008
. V ia lpando w as ape rs on o f int er es t i n th e 13 m urder beca

use he had a vehicle sim ilar to the o n e u s ed to comm it the crim e; 14 how ev er , he w as ne ve r ch ar ge d and the hom ic ide r em ai ns unsol ve d. 15 { 10} Carm en , N ikk i, an d M ic ha el a lso te sti fi ed a t tri al

. C ar

m enw as six te ena t the 16 tim e of

V ia lpando’ s m

ur de r. S he de sc ribed the m anw ho s poke w itha nd s hot 17 Vialpando as sm all with long hair. S he wa s so near to this m an that if she had rolled 18 dow n he r w ind owshe c oul d have tou ch ed him

. S he had a“ ve ry

c le ar ” loo k a t this6

1 m anw he n th e shoo tin g be gan. S he ide nti fi ed Ram ir ez a s th e m anw ho s poke w ith 2 an d sh ot V ia lpando. L ike Rh ia nn on , C arm ena lso he ar d R am ir ez say “ T his is fo r 3 G ar y ” im m ed ia te ly be fo re Ram ir ez sho t V ia lpando. D ur ing c ro ss- ex am ina tio n, 4 Carm ena dm itt ed

tha t sh e ha d se enpho tog ra phs of Ram ir ez in th e ne wsp ap er but 5 explained that sh e had also “ seen him with [her] ey es.” Nikki, w ho was fourtee n at 6 the ti m e of

the sho oti ng, a nd M ic ha el , w ho w as el ev en at th e tim e of the inc ide nt, 7 both a lso ide nti fi ed

Ram ir ez a s th e pe rs on w ho c onve rs ed w itha nd the n sh ot 8 V ia lpando. 9 { 11} Sh an le y

L uj an , a by stande r, of

fe re d the fo llo w ing a cc ount of the m ur de r. S he 10 w as sittin g inhe r car at the t im e of

the sho oti ng, a nd V ia lpando w as sho t r igh t i n 11 front o f he r . S he de sc r i be d t he m a n w ho sp ok e w i t h a nd t he n sh ot V i a l pand o as 12 Hispanic w ith wavy , shoul d er-length hair. She identified Ram irez a s the shoo ter. 13 A ft er the shoo tin g, she sawRam ir ez e nte r a w hit e SU V tha t ha d bl oc ke d th e D ur an go 14 in an d wat ch edth e SUV sp eed away “ craz y fas t.” 15 { 12} T he f

oll ow ing a ddi tio na l e vid en ce w as pr es en te d to the jury. R am ir ez is 16 re la tiv el y

sm al l— he is fi ve fe et tw o inc he s ta ll an d w ei ghs 110 poun ds— an d w as thi s 17 height and we ight at the ti m e o f the shoo ting. For a m an, his hair is longer than 18 av er ag e. S ta te inv es tig at or s r ec ove re d ala te nt p rin t of R am ir ez ’ s pa lm ne ar the7

1 w ind ow ’ s e dge of

the f ro nt p as se nge r- sid e door o f the D ur an go. R am ir ez ow ne d a 2 white Chevy

Blaze r at the tim e of the shootin g, and shortly after the shoot ing, he w as 3 arre sted in a white Chevy Blaze r. A fter R amir ez wa s apprehended, the police 4 obse rv ed

tha t he ha d an in

j ur y on h is l ef

t hand, ne ar

the w eb bin g of

the f ing er s. 5 Ram irez is lef

t-handed. When a p erson fires a sem iautom atic g un, it will r ecoil. If 6 the sho ote r la ck s astr ong gr ip, the gun w ill ro ta te and, upo n r ec oil , the ha m m er or the 7 sl id e m ig ht in

jure th e sh oo te r’s ha nd

. On th e da y of th e sh oo ti ng , Sha ne Fle tc he r, a 8 flooring in staller, rec overed a gun not far fr om wher e police officer s first encountered 9 the Chevy Blazer

. That gun w as retrieved by law enforcem ent and wa s identified as 10 a Cz ec hosl ova kian se m iauto m at ic pis tol w itha n e xte rn al ha m m er th at c o u l d s tr i ke the 11 ski n w he n di sc ha rg ed

. A f ire arm s e xpe rt

te sti fi ed tha t the bul le ts and c as ing s 12 re co ve re d a t the c ri m e sc en e w er e fi re d f ro m thi s gun. 13 { 13} T his e vid en ce m or e than a de qua te ly e sta bli she s R am ir ez ’ s id en tity a s th e 14 pe rs on who sh otVial pa nd o. See State v. Hunter , 1933 -N MS C- 069, ¶ 6, 37 N
. M. 382 , 15 24 P.2d 251 (“ [T ] he testim ony of a sin g l e w itness m ay

legally suffice a s evidence 16 uponw hic h the jury m ay fo und a ve rd ic t of gui lt. ”)

. R am ir ez ’ s c ont en tio n th at the 17 fi rs t-d eg ree m

ur de r ch ar ge is not

sup porte d by

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce be ca

use the 18 ey ew itn es s te sti m ony is “ unr el ia

ble ” is una va ili ng. T he j ur y was f re e to a cc ep t or8

1 reject th e eyewitn es s ac co un ts . See State v. McA fee , 196 7-NMS C-139, ¶ 8, 78 N. M. 2 108, 42 8 P.2 d 647 (“ It w as f or the j ur y to de te rm ine the w ei ght to be giv enthe 3 testim ony

and determ i n e t h e credibility of the w itnesses[.] ” (c itations om itted)). 4 Sim ilarly , R am irez a chieves very little by em phasizing the evidence presented at trial 5 in s uppo rt

of his the or y tha t he w as not

the sho ote r. “ Co ntr ar

y ev ide nc e supp ortin g 6 acquittal does no t provide a basis for reversal b ec au s e the j ury is free to rej ect 7 De fendant’ s version of the facts.” Sta te v . R ojo , 1999-NMS C-001, ¶ 19, 1 26 N. M. 8 438, 971 P
. 2d 8 29. 9 2. Tam perin g w ith evide nce 10 { 14} Ram ir ez c ont en ds tha t the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce of

fe re d to support hi s 1 1 co nvi c t i o n f

o r t a m p e r i n g w i t h e v i d e n c e b e c au s e “ [ t ] h e S t a t e n e v e r t i e dt h e w eapon 12 to Alej andro Ram irez. ” T hi s ar g u m en t fails. As w e have alr eady explained, there 13 wa s sufficient evidence o ffer ed to supp ort the j ury ’ s determ ination that Ram irez w as 14 the sho ote r. T he fo llo w ing a ddi tio na l e vid en ce c onne ct s R am ir ez to the gunuse d to 15 kil l V ia lpando. 16 { 15} A gun wa s recovere d not far fr om wher e poli ce o ffice rs first encountered 17 Ram ir ez in the Ch ev y Bl az er . Thi s gun fi re d th e bul le ts tha t ki lle d V ia lpando an d 18 discharged the casings foun d at the crim e scene. From th i s ev i d en ce, the j ury

wa s9

1 fr ee to inf

er tha t Ram ir ez dis card ed thi s gun af te r kil lin g V ia lpando an d fl ee ing the 2 sc ene. Se e Sta te v . Ca rri llo , 201 7- N MS C- 023, ¶ 46, 399 P
. 3d 3 67 ( re

j ec tin g th e 3 de fe ndant’ s su ff

ic ie nc y c ha lle nge to ta m

pe ri ng w ithe vid en ce a nd o bse rv ing tha t the 4 j ur y c oul d lo gic al ly de duc e or inf er , f ro m the f ac ts p re se nte d, tha t the de fe ndant h id 5 or otherwise disposed of a gun to prevent apprehension, prosecution, or conviction ). 6 3. Sh oot in g ata m ot or ve hi cl e 7 { 16} Ram irez argues that there w as “ insufficient ev i d en ce to prove that [he] wa s 8 gui lty of shoo tin g at a m oto r ve hic le

. ” Be ca use w e co nc lud e in a

sub se que nt s ec tio n 9 of thi s op ini on tha t the sho oti ng- at -a -m oto r- ve hic le co nv ic tio n m ust be va ca te d on 1 0 d o ub l e j e o p a r d y g r o u n d s , w e n e e dn o ta d d r e s s t h i s s u f f i c i e n c y c l a i m. 11 4. C hi ld ab us e 12 { 17} Ram ir ez a sse rt s th at ther e w as ins uf

fi ci en t e vid en ce pr es en te d to sup port the 13 child abuse conv ictions b ecause “ none of t he three child ren were phy sically harm ed 14 in any w ay ” and “ the re w as no evi de nc e to s uppo rt tha t [ he ] int en de d to harm a ny of 15 the ch ildren.” Ram irez does not questio n the validit y of the child abuse jury 16 in st ru ct io n. Se e Sta te v . H olt , 2016-NMS C-011, ¶ 20, 368 P.3d 409 (“ [T ]h e [j] ury 17 instructio ns becom e the lawof the case against w hich the suff iciency of the evidence 18 is to be m eas ured

. ” ( al te ratio ns i n or igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n10

1 om itt ed ))

. T he in st ru ct io n di d no t r equir e the j ur y to fi nd tha t R am ir ez int en de d to 2 harm the children or that Ram irez a ctually phy sically harm ed the children. R ather, 3 the instructio n required the j ury to find that Ram irez “ caused [the child] to be placed 4 in a situation that endangered the life or hea l t h o f [t h e child] ” and that “ Ram irez 5 sh owe d a reck le ss di sr eg ardforth e sa fet y or h eal th of [ th e ch il d].” 6 { 18} The j ur

y he a r d e vi de nc e t ha t R a m i r e z f i r e d a gun a t V i a l pand o ni ne tim es at 7 poi nt- blank r an ge , tha t V ia lpand o wa s se at ed in the f ro nt p as se nge r se at

of the 8 D u r a n g o , a n d t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n w e r e s i t t i n g i n t h e b a c k s e a t s o f t h e D ur an go i n 9 im m ed ia te pr oxi m ity to V ia lpando. T he j ur y al so le ar

ne d tha t, a lth oughV ia lpando 10 wa s shot nine tim es, only five of the bu llets we re found insid e o f his body

. Severa l 11 of the bul le ts Ram ir ez fi re d tr av el ed thr ough V ia lpando an d co nti nue d onw ar d. O ne 12 of tho se bul le ts trave le d th ro ugh the dr ive r’ s- sid e w ind ow in the se co nd r owof se at s 13 of the D ur an go and anothe r bul le t w as re co ve re d fr om the he ad lin er or ins ide r oof of 14 the Durango. From

this evidence, the j ury

cou l d reasonably

infer that it w as sheer 15 luc k t ha t t he c hi l dr e n w e r e no t str uc k by on e of t he bu l l e t s R a m i r e z fired at 16 V ia lpando. T hus, w e ha ve no d oubt tha t the e viden ce pres en te d is suf fi ci en t t o 17 supp ort the j ur

y ’ s de te rm ina tio n tha t Ram ir ez pla ce d th e thr ee c hil dr enin a sit ua tio n11

1 t h a t e n d a n g e r e d t h e i r l i v e s a n d t h a t R a m i r e z s h o w e d a r e c k l e s s d i s r e g a rdf orthe ir 2 sa fe ty a nd h ea lth

. 3 5. A ggr avat ed ass au lt 4 { 19} Ram irez c ontend s that “ [t] here w as insufficien t ev idence to prove that [he] 5 co m m it te d a gg rav a te d a ss au lt ag ai ns t [Rhi an no n] Vial pa nd o.” He m ak es two 6 argum ent s t o su

pp or t t hi s c l a i m . F i r st , R a m i r e z c on t e nd s t ha t t he e vi de nc e w as 7 insufficient because the State did not establish that Ram irez pointed the gun at 8 Rhiannon or fire it in her direction and, beca use he did no t poin t t h e g un in h er 9 direction, Rhiannon’s “ ‘ fear ’ for he r li fe wa s not reasonable.” Second, he argues that 10 “ there w as n o ev i d ence that the shooter willfully and intentio nally

assaulted 11 [R hiannon ] V ia lpando. ” W e re j ec t bo th arg um en ts. 12 { 20} The j ury

wa s instructed that, to find Ram irez guilty of aggravated assault, they 13 ha d to f

ind tha t R am ir ez “ dis ch ar ge d a f ir earm in the dir ec tio n of

Rh iannon 14 Vialpando,” that this “ conduct caused Rhiann on Vialpando to b elieve [that Ram irez] 15 w as about

to intru de on R

hiannonV ia lpando’ s bodil y int eg ri ty or pe rs ona l sa fe ty

by 16 touchin g or apply ing force to Rhiannon Via lpando in a rude, insolent or angry 17 m an ner, ” an d th at

“ [a ] r ea sona

ble pe rs on i n th e sa m e ci rc um stanc es a s R hiannon12

1 Vialpando would have had the sam e belief. ” T he j ury so found and the evidence wa s 2 suf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t this f ind ing

. 3 { 21} Ram irez’ s contentio n that there w as no evi de nce to sugg est that the firearm wa s 4 aim ed in Rhi a nn on ’ s di r e c t i ona r i se s f r om af or m a l i st i c a nd

c on c e pt ua l l y f l a w ed 5 understandi ng of what it m eans to “ discharge[] a firearm in the dire ction of” som eone. 6 Ram i r e z f

i r e d n i n e s h o t s i n t o t h e f r o n t p a s s e n g e r - s i d e w i n d o w o f t h e D ur an go. 7 Rh iannonw as se at ed in the dr ive r’ s sea t of the D ur an go. Whe n the shoo tin g be ga n, 8 Rh iannongr ab be d V ia lpando’ s arm a nd c los ed

he r ey es . Sh e be lie ve d th at she a nd 9 all of her f

am ily would die. 10 { 22} A sho oti ng c ondu ct ed in ve ry c los e quart er s endange rs an y one in pr oxi m ity to 11 the int en de d targ et . In oth er w or ds, w he n Ram ir ez poi nte d th e gun at V ia lpando, he 12 w as sim

ult an eo usl y

poi nti ng i t “ in the dir ec tio n of ” Rh iannon. T o c onc lud e 13 otherwise w ould require us to acce pt Ram irez’ s argum ent that Rhiannon ’ s fear for her 14 life and safe ty

during th e shootin g was unrea sonable as she was not the intend ed 1 5 ta r g e t . T h i s w e w i l l n o t d o . T h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d w a s s u f f i c i e n t t o suppor t t he 16 j ur y ’ s de te rm ina tio n th at Ram ir ez fi re d a gun in R hiannon ’ s di re ct ion , tha t R hiannon 17 believed she was in danger of r eceiving an im m ediate battery and that this belief was 18 reas on ab le

. See § 30-3-1(B).13

1 { 23} T his Co urt’ s de ci sio n in Sta te v . M anus dis pose s of Ram ir ez ’ s se co nd 2 ar gu m e nt

—t ha tt he r e w a s no e vi de nc e h e w i l l f ul l y a nd i nt e nt i on a l l y

a ss aulted 3 Rh ia nn on . 19 79 -NMSC -0 3 5 , ¶¶ 12 -1 4, 9 3 N.M. 9 5, 5 97 P.2d 28 0, ov errul ed on 4 o th e r gr o u n d s b yS e l l s v . St ate , 1 982-N MS C- 125, ¶ ¶ 9- 10, 98 N
. M. 786 , 653 P
. 2d 5 162. I n M

anus , an of

fic er ha d arre st edMrs . Man us in fro nt of t he Man us ho m e. Id

. 6 ¶ 3. While a by stander wa s helping t h e o ff i ce r com plete an acc ident report, Mr

. 7 Man us em erg edfro m

th e ho m e wiel di ng a lo ad edgu n. Id

. ¶ 5. Mr. Manus poin ted 8 the gun in the direction of the office r and by stander and shot and killed th e office r. 9 Id

. Th e ju r y

co nv ic te d M r. Man us of a gg rav at edass au lt ag ai ns t t he bysta nd er. Id

. 10 ¶ 1. W e affir

m ed that convictio n and held that the state was not required to prove that 11 Mr. Manus specifically intended to assault the by stander but onlythat Mr. Manus had 12 co m m itt ed an unl aw fu l ac t w ithge ne ra l c ri m ina l i nte nt tha t c au se d th e by stande r to 13 be li ev e th atsh e was in da ng er o f rec ei vi ng an imm ed ia te ba tt ery. Id

. ¶ 14; se e als o 14 State v. B ranch , 201 6- N MC A -0 71, ¶ 16, 387 P
. 3d 250 (“ L ia

bil ity und er the statut e 15 is o nly

li m ite d by

the req ui si te m en ta l st at e of c onsc iou s w ro ngdo ing a nd b y the 16 requirem ent that the victim ’ s fear m ust be reasonable.”)

. Ram irez a cknowledges that 17 the m ens rea e lem ent necessary to establish aggravated assault is general cr im inal14

1 intent, i.e ., conscious wr o n g doin g. Ram irez’ s second argum ent fails. Ther e w as 2 suf fi ci en t e vid en ce to supp ort R am ir ez ’ s a ggr av at ed a ssa ult c onvi ct ion

. 3 B. Supp ression of th e Iden tification T estim ony 4 { 24} Prior t o tri al , R amir ez fi l ed a mot i o nre qu es t i n g s up p re s s i o n o f “al l o u t -o f-court 5 id en ti fic at io ns ” an d “ al l i n- co ur t i de nt ifi cat io ns ” b y “a n y all eg edey e wit ne ss .” 6 Ram ir ez ar gue d that the re w as a“ gr av e da nge r” the a nti ci pa te d e y ew itn es se s w oul d 7 offer “ i rr e par abl e m i si de nt i f i c a t i on [ s] , ” a r e su l t t ha t R a m i r e z c l a i m e d w ou l d be a 8 “ m i s ca rr i ag e o f ju s t i ce ” an d“ a v i o l at i o n o f [ h i s ri g h tt o ] du e p ro ce s s .” Ra m i re z’s 9 m otion also requested that the court conduct a hearing on these m atters. T he district 10 court rej ect ed Ram irez’ s argum ents and denied th e m otion

. On appeal, Ram irez 11 ar gue s th at

the dis tr ic t cour

t shoul d have gr an te d the m oti on, tha t in fai lin g to do s o 12 it de nie d hi m

his r igh t t o du e pr oc es s, an d tha t thi s er ro r is gr ound s f

or r ev er sa l of

his 13 co nvict ion s. W e ar e not pe rs ua de d, a nd t o e xpl ai n w hy w e m ust f ir st c ar ef ull y 14 ex am ine the a rg um en ts p re se nte d to the dis tr ic t c ourt. 15 { 25} Ram ir ez a sse rt ed in distri ct co urt tha t the e y ew itn es s a cc ount s of the sho oti ng 16 se rv ed

a s th e fo unda tio n f

or the c ha rg es a ga in st hi m an d th at tho se e y ew itn es s 17 accounts are “ unreliable” and “ inadm issib le.” T hey are unreliable and inadm issib le, 18 he argued, because “ any in-court identification byany alleged ey ew itness is tain ted15

1 by the out -o f- co urt i de nti fi ca tio n . . . . ” Ram ire z in tur n a sse rt ed

tha t “ the 2 out-of-court identification procedures used . .

. we re so im perm issib ly unreliable as 3 to giv e rise to a v ery subs tantial likelih ood o f irr eparable m isidenti fication.” Ram irez 4 poi nte d ou t tha t “ [n ] o w itn es s w as pr ovi de d wi th an op portun ity to pa rt ic ipa te in a 5 show -u p, li ne -u p, ph ot o ar

ray or oth er ty pe of ide nti fi ca tio n pr oc ee din g f oll ow ing 6 their initial observation a t the tim e of the shoo ting.” Ram irez also pointed o u t t hat 7 Rh iannonide nti fi ed

him a s th e shoo te r at

the pr el im inary

he ar ing

. 8 { 26} It seem s Ram irez intended to convey that the absence o f

o ut - of

- c ourt 9 identification procedu res together w ith the fact that Rhiannon was poised to test ify 10 tha t sh e ha d pre vio usl y ide nti fi ed him as the shoo te r at apr el im inary

he ar ing m igh t 11 som ehow taint the ey ew itnesses’ trial testim ony and lead the ey ew itnesses to id entify 12 him a s th e shoo te r re ga rd le ss o f w he the r or not the y a ct ua lly sa w h imsho ot 13 V ia lpando. T his out co m e se em ed a ll to o li kely , or

so R am ir ez c la im ed , giv enthe 14 le ng th y

sp an of t im e b et wee n t h e sh oo ti ng an d t ria l— a p eri od of m or e th an two 15 y ears —duri ng w hic h m em or ie s of the fe at ur es of the shoo te r w oul d have f ad ed

. T his 16 understandi ng of the argum ents appea rs t o be precisely how the district court 17 co nstru ed

the m , a nd the c ourt w as unp er sua de d.16

1 { 27} T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ej ec te d R am ir ez ’ s c la im tha t law e nf

or ce m en t’ s de ci sio n to 2 ab sta in f

ro m e nga gin g ina ny

f orm of out -o f- co urt i de nti fi ca ti on pr oc ed ur e co uld 3 som ehow taint the anticipated in-court identifications

. Where there is no out-of-court 4 ide nti fi ca tio n pr oc ed

ur e, the c ourt r ea sone d, tha t no ne xis te nt p ro ce dur e cannot ta int 5 later in-court identifications. S im ilarly , the c ourt dism issed R am i r e z ’ s c ont e nt i on

that 6 perm itting Rhiannon to testify at tri a l a bo ut her in-court identification at a prelim inary 7 hearing m ight so m ehow taint the other anticipated in-court identifications at trial. In 8 the court’ s view, these claim s had no bear ing on the adm issib ility of the anticipated 9 ey ew itness testim ony

but we re actually

argum ents directed at the w eight Ram irez 10 be lie ve d th e j ur

y sho uld giv e the ide nti fi ca tio ns. T he c ourt de te rm in ed tha t “ [a ] ny 11 w eakne ss i n th e te sti m ony c anbe r ev ea le d duri ng c ro ss- ex am ina tio n. I t i s th e 12 func tio n of

the j ur y a s f ac t f ind er , not thi s C ourt a s a gate ke ep er , to de te rm ine the 13 credibility

and reliability

of trial w itnesses.” In the e nd, t he district court perm itted 14 Rhiannon , the three child ren, and Luj an to give ey ew itness testim ony at t rial. They 15 al l i de nti fi ed

Ram ir ez a s th e shoo te r. Rh iannon w as al so p er m itt ed to te sti fy tha t sh e 16 ha d e ar lie r ide nti fi ed

Ram ir ez a s th e shoo te r at apr el im inary

he ar ing

. 17 { 28} On appeal, Ra m irez a sserts that the court erre d in perm itting the in-court 18 identifications , but the focus of his ar gum ents has changed. He continu es t o assert17

1 tha t the in- co urt i de nti fi ca tio ns w er e “ ta int ed ” but nowe m pha siz es tha t m ed iar ep orts 2 in the a ft er

m ath of the sho oti ng i ndi ca te d th at he w as the sus pe ct ed

sho ote r, a nd h e 3 arg ue s t ha t t he se rep or ts ne ces sa ril y tai nt edth e eyewitn es se s’ id en ti fic at io ns . He 4 as se rt s tha t “ [t ] he fa ct tha t the ta int w as not ca use d by the pol ic e, doe s not le sse n th e 5 problem

in this day

of instant social m edia.” H e also contends th at the very fac t that 6 the in- co urt i de nti fi ca tio ns h ap pe ne d in ac ourtr oom is sig nif ic an t. W itn es se s, 7 Ram irez points out , know where the def endant sits and who he is. Ram irez f urther 8 sugg es ts tha t hi s e thn ic ity a nd g en de r ar e sig nif

ic an t. H e not es tha t he w as the onl y 9 H isp an ic m al e se at ed in the a re a of the c ourtr oom

r es er ve d f or a tto rn ey s. F or

the se 10 reasons, R am irez c laim s that the ey ew itness identifications at t rial w ere the product 11 of sug ge sti on, a re unr el ia bl e, a nd, thu s, pe rm itt ing the e y ew itn es se s to of fe r the 12 ide nti fi ca tio n te sti m ony vio la te d hi s r igh t t o du e pr oc es s. 13 { 29} Be ca

use Ram ir ez a rg ue s th at

the dis tr ic t cour

t’ s dec isi on to deny his m oti on t o 14 su pp res s v io la te d h is rig ht to du e p ro ces s, o urrev ie w is de no vo . See S t a t e v. 15 Be l anger , 20 09

- N M S C

- 02 5, ¶ 8, 14 6 N
. M
. 35 7, 21 0 P
. 3d 78 3 ( “ T hi s appeal 16 im pli ca te s . . . the F ourte en th A m en dm en t r igh t t o du e pr oc es s of law , inc lud ing the 17 right to a fair tria l, and therefore our r eview is de novo.”)

.18

1 { 30} O u r

t r e a t men t o f t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e db y R a mi r e z i s g u i d e db y Pe rry v. New 2 H a m pshi re , 56 5 U.S. 2 28 (20 12 ). Se e U nited Sta tes v . T

hom as , 849 F
. 3d 9 06, 910 3 (10th Cir. 2017) (ac knowledgin g the debate whether P erry“ overruled ci rc uit-level 4 precedent re quiring i n quiries into the suggest iveness and reliabilityof in-court 5 ide nti fi ca tio ns” an d em br ac ing the c onc lus iontha t “ P erry applies not onlyto pretrial 6 id en ti fic at io ns bu t al so to in -co ur t i de nt ifi cat io ns ”), cert. denied , Thomas v. United 7 States , ___ S. Ct
. ___, 2017 W L 2363 067 (U

. S. O ct . 10, 2017 ). T he de fe nd an t in 8 P errychallenged the adm issib ility o f a p r ej udicial out -of-c ourt identification that wa s 9 not a rr an ge d by

the pol ic e an d arg ue d th at due proc es s requ ir ed

the tr ia l c ourt t o 10 assess th e re l iabilityof anye y ew itn es s id en tif ic at ionm ad e unde r sugg es tiv e 11 ci rc um stanc es . 565 U
. S. at 232- 33, 240- 41. T he Co urt re j ec te d thi s ar gum en t and 12 he ld tha t du e pr oc es s “ doe s no t r equir e a pr el im inary j udici al inquir

y int o th e 13 reliability

of an ey ew itness id entification when the identification was not procured 14 under unnecessarily

suggest ive circum stances arr anged by lawenforce m ent.” Id

. at 15 248. In rea ching th is conclusi on, the P erryCo urt surv ey ed the e xis tin g bo dy

of c as e 16 law r eg ar din g th e adm iss ibi lity of e y ew itn es s id en tif

ic at ion s. 17 { 31} P erryn o t e dt h a tin Mans on v . B rathw ait e , 432 U
. S. 98 ( 1977 ), a nd Neil v. 18 B igg er

s , 409 U. S. 188 (1972), the Court set forth an approach to determ ine whether19

1 du e p ro ces s re qu ire s s up pr es si on of ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io n. Se e P erry , 565 U. S. 2 at23 8. P erryc lari fi ed tha t this approac h em

br ac es ac ru ci al pr ec ondi tio n: “ due 3 process concerns arise onl yw he n law e nf

or ce m en t of

fi ce rs use a n id en tif

ic at ion 4 procedure th at i s both sugg estive and unn ecessar y .” Id

. at 238-39 (em

phasis add ed); 5 se e als o id

. a t2 4 1 ( “Th e du e p r o c e s s c h e c kf o r r e l i ab i l i t y . . . c o me s i n t o p l a y onl y 6 aft er th e d efen da nt est ab li sh es im pr op er p ol ic e co nd uc t.” (e m ph as is ad de d) ). P erry 7 furthe r cl ar if

ie d that , unde r the lin e of

pr ec ed en t be gin nin g w ith Sto va ll v. D en no , 388 8 U
. S. 293 ( 1967 ), “ the Co urt ha s li nke d th e due pr oc es s c he ck , no t to su sp icionof 9 e y e w i t n e s s t e s t i m o n y g e n e r a l l y , b u t o n l y t o i m p r o p e r p o l i c e a rr a n g e m e n t of the 10 circum stances surroundi ng an identi fication.” P erry , 565 U
. S. a t 24 2; se e als o State 11 v. Flores , 201 0- N MS C- 002, ¶ 56, 147 N
. M. 542 , 226 P
. 3d 64 1 (a cknow le dgi ng 12 authoritylim iting suppre s s i o n o f in-court identifications to o nly those cases wher e 13 the in-court identification “ follows an allegedly suggest ive pretrial encounter” that 14 its el f re sul te d “ fr om som e ty pe of gove rn m en t ac tio n. ” (quot ing L ynn M. Talu ti s, 15 A dm iss ibi lit

y of I n- Co urt Id

en tif ic ati on as A

ffe ct ed by P re tri al E

nc ount er T hat W as 16 Not Result of

Ac tion by Police, Prosecutors, and the Like , 86 A .L .R. 5th 46 3 (2001))). 17 { 32} T he in- co urt, ey ewitnes s id en tif ic at ion s he re w er e not the r es ult

of 18 im pe rm is si bl e, su gg es ti ve , pre tri al , law-e nf or cemen t-o rch es tra te d p ro ced ur es . No20

1 suc h pr oc ed

ur es oc curr ed

. I nde ed , to en sur e tha t R am ir ez w as not unf ai rl y 2 prej udiced, the police abandoned a plann ed, pre trial photog raphic lineup when they 3 di sc ov ered th at th e m ed ia ha d al read y pu bl is he d p ho to s o f Ram ire z. Ram ire z’s own 4 ey ew itn es s id en tif

ic at ione xpe rt

te sti fi ed tha t th e pol ic e ac te d pr ope rl y by not 5 pr oc ee din g w iththe li ne up. 6 { 33} Ra m i r e z ’ s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t i t d o e s n o t m a t t e r th a t t h e a l l e g e d t a i n t i n h is c as e 7 ar ose f ro m m ed iac ove ra ge r athe r than im pr ope r pol ic e inf

lue nc e is s im

ply inc or re ct . 8 T he sourc e of the al le ge d tai nt doe s m at te r. I t i s on ly w he n law e nf

or ce m en t are the 9 source of the taint that due process concerns arise. 10 { 34} Ram ir ez ’ s ob

j ec tio n to the f

ac t tha t the in- co urt i de nti fi ca tions oc curr ed in a 11 co urtr oom , his c la im

tha t hi s se at

pos iti on i n th e co urtr oom a nd h is e thn ic ity

a nd 12 ge nde r w er e al l su gge sti ve , a nd h is arg um en t tha t the e y ew itn es se s’ m em or ie s of the 13 feature s of t he shoo ter lik ely faded given the delay

betwee n the offense and trial ar e 14 al l e qua lly

unava ili ng. T he se f

ac ts d o no thi ng t o e sta

bli sh tha t the a lle ge d ta int , if 15 th ere was an y , aro se as a co ns eq ue nc e o f im pr op er l aw en fo rcem en t i nf lu en ce. See 16 Th om as , 849 F. 3d at 9 11 (rej ecting the argum ent that an in-court identification was 17 undu ly

suggest ive because the defendant w as the only Af rican-A m erican m an at 18 co unse l t ab le , the e y ew itn es s ha d ne ve r be ena ske d to id en ti fy the r obbe r, a nd the21

1 in- co urt i de nti fi ca tio n oc curr ed m or e than ni ne te enm onths a ft er the c ri m e, a s th es e 2 ar e not c ir cu m stanc es a ttr ibu ta

ble to im pr ope r law e nf

or ce m ent co nd uct)

. T o th e 3 extent Ram irez m eans to criticize identification testim ony m ore broadly

as an 4 inh er en tly

pr obl em at ic an d un re lia

ble f orm of e vid en ce , his a tta ck

ne ce ssari ly

f ai ls 5 in l igh t of

the dis cu ssi on i n P erry . 6 { 35} P erry reco gn iz edth at“ [m ]ost ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io ns in vo lv e so m e el em ent 7 of sugg es tio n[ ; i] nde ed , al l in- co urt ide nti fi ca tio ns do[ , ] ” an d ac know le dge d th at “ the 8 annals of crim inal law are r ife w ith instances of m istaken identi fication.” 565 U.S
. 9 at 244 -4 5 ( int er

na l qu ota ti on m arks a nd c itatio n om itt ed ). N ev er the le ss, P erry 10 co nc lud ed tha t “ [t ] he fa lli bil ity of e y ew itn es s e vid en ce doe s no t, w ith out the ta int of 11 im proper state conduct, w arrant a due process rule requiring a trial c ourt to screen 12 su ch ev id en ce fo r rel iabi li ty befo re al lo win g a jury to a s s e s s it s cr ed it wor th in es s.” 13 Id

. at 24 5. Mo reo ve r, P errye m pha siz ed tha t othe r co nst itu tio na l sa fe guard s pr ovi de 14 a cr im ina l de fe ndant s uf fi ci ent pr ote ct iona ga ins t any f undam en ta l un fa ir

ne ss 15 res ul ti ng fro m

ey ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io ns . Id

. ; cf

. Sta te v . Ch ea dle , 198 3- N MS C- 093, 16 ¶ 15, 101 N
. M. 282 , 681 P
. 2d 7 08 (“ Onc e a court f ind s th at the e vid en ce is 17 adm is si ble , it

be co m es aj ur

y de te rm ina tio n a s to the a cc ur ac y of aw itn es s’ 18 id en ti fic at io n.” ), overruled on other gro unds by B elanger , 200 9- N MS C- 025, ¶ 36.22

1 T he se inc lud e the r igh t t o have a j ur y ev al ua te the te sti m ony of w itn es se s, the r igh t 2 to confront ey ew itnesses, the right to the effec tive assistance of an attorney who can 3 ex p o s e t h e f

l aw s o f e yewi t n es s t es t i m o n y o n cr o s s -e x amin at i o n an dfo cu s t h e ju ry’s 4 at te nti on o n su chf

law s duri ng o pe nin g and c los ing a rg um en ts, the r igh t t o pr es en t 5 te sti m ony

about the unr el ia

bil ity of e y ew itn es s id en ti fic ationm ad e unde r ce rt ai n 6 ci rcu m st ance s, a nd the r equir em en t tha t the state pr ove gui lt be y ond a re as ona ble 7 do ub t. P erry , 565 U
. S. a t 24 5- 47. R am ir ez uti liz ed an d bene fi tte d fr om the se vari ous 8 sa fe guard s a t hi s tr ia l. 9 { 36} Ram irez def

tly cross-ex amined those witnesses who m ade in-court 10 ide nti fi ca tio ns and dre w a tte nti on t o th e pot en tia l un re lia bil ity of the ir a cc ount s of

the 11 shoo tin g. A nd a s no te d, he a lso c al le d an e xpe rt w itn es s ine y ew itn es s id en tif ic at ion 12 an d e y ew itn es s id en tif ic at ionpr oc edur e. T ha t e xpe rt te sti fi ed

about the 13 ci rc um stanc es of

m em or y form at ion , r et en tio n, r ec al l, a nd m ai nte na nc e; the 14 co ndi tio ns tha t r en de r pr oc ed ur es of ide nti fi ca tio n m or e or le ss r el ia ble ; the r ole of 15 av ai la ble m ed ia de pic tio ns as ind ep en de nt s our ce s inthe f orm at ionof

m em or y a nd 16 the co nse que nt ef

fe ct on the re lia

bil ity of sub se que nt e y ew itn es s id en tif ic at ion s; and 17 the unreliabilityof in-court ey ew itness id entifications, both generally and in th i s c ase. 18 Ram ir ez ’ s j ur

y w as tho ro ughl y

inf orm ed a bout the sho rt co m in gs of ey ew itn es s23

1 testim ony

when it considered the specific e y ew i t n ess testim ony presented at 2 Ram irez’ s trial and determ i n ed that Ram irez w as the person who shot and killed 3 V ia lpando. 4 { 37} For these re asons, we hold th at the district court did no t er r when it d enied 5 Ram ir ez ’ s m oti on t o suppr es s all out -o f- co urt and in- co urt i de nti fi ca tio ns. N or did 6 it er r i n d e n y i n g R a m i r e z a h e a r i n g o n t h e qu e s t i o n o f t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of the 7 ide nti fi ca tio ns. 8 C. Doub le Jeopardy 9 { 38} “ T h e D o ub l e J e o p a r d y C l au s e o f t h e F i f t h A m e n d m e n t , e n f

o r c e d a g a i n s tthe 10 sta te s by

the F ourte en th A m en dm en t, pr ote ct s de fe ndants f ro m r ec eivin g m

ult ipl e 11 p u n i s h m en ts for the sam e offe nse.” Sta te v . D eG raf f , 2 0 0 6

- N M S C

- 0 1 1 , ¶

2 5 , 1 39 12 N
. M. 211 , 131 P
. 3d 6 1 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om it te d)

. T he 13 pr ote ct ion thi s cl au se pr ovi de s, how ev er , is lim ite d. “ [T ] he onl y f unc tio n th e D oubl e 14 Je opardy

Cl au se se rv es in ca se s c ha lle ngi ng m ult ipl e puni shm en ts i s to pr ev en t the 1 5 pr o s e c u t o r

f r o m b r i n g i n g m o r e c h a r g e s , a n dt h e s e n t e n c i n g c o u rtf r o m i m posi ng 16 greater

punis hm ents, than the L egislat i v e Br anch intended.” H erron v. Sta te , 17 1991 -NMSC -0 12, ¶

6, 111 N
. M. 357 , 805 P
. 2d 6 24 ( em pha sis , int er

na l qu ota tio n 18 m arks, and citations o m itted).24

1 { 39} “ The re are two cl as si fic at io ns of do ub le jeop ard y m ul ti pl e-p un is hm en t ca se s.” 2 State v. Swick, 2012-NMS C-018, ¶ 10, 279 P.3d 747. “ Th e fi rs t is the doub le3 description case, w here the sam e conduct results in m ultip le conviction s under 4 differe nt statutes.” Id

. “ The sec ond is the unit-of-prosecution case, wher e a 5 defe ndant challenges m ultip le conviction s under the sam e statute.” Id

. Ram irez 6 m ak es both ty

pe s of dou ble j eo pa rdy

m ult ipl e- puni shm en t c ha lle nge s. 7 1 . D o u b l e - d e s c r i p t i o n c l a i ms 8 { 40} Ram irez f

irst argu es that this Court sh ould vacate the shooting -at-a -m otor9 v e h i c l e c o u n t b e c au s e i t v i o l a t e s d o ub l e je o p a r d y u n d e r a d o ub l e - d e s c r i p t i o n t h e o ry. 10 T he S ta te c onc ed es tha t R am ir ez is co rr ec t an d tha t the sho oti ng- at -a -m oto r- ve hic le 11 convictio n m

ust be vacated because it w as subsu m ed by t h e first-degree m urder 12 ch arg e. State v. M

onto ya , 2013 -N MSC- 020, ¶¶ 2, 54, 306 P. 3d 42 6. W e agre e that 13 Ram ir ez ’ s c onvi ct ionf or sho oti ng a t a

m oto r ve hic le m

ust be va ca te d. 14 { 41} Ram ir ez ne xt m ak es ac ur sor y doub le -d es cr ipt ion ch al le nge to h is c onvi ct ion s 15 fo r both c hil d a

buse a nd a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult

. H e co nte nds tha t the se c ount s sh oul d 1 6 a l s o b e me r g e di n t o t h e f i r s t - d e g r e e mu r d e r

c h a r g e . We r e

j e c tt h i s c l a i m. 17 { 42} D oubl e- de sc rip tion c ha lle nge s are sub j ec t t o th e tw o- pa rt

te st s et f orth i n 18 Sw aff ord v. Sta te , 1991-NMS C-043, ¶¶ 25-34, 112 N.M . 3, 810 P.2d 1223

. Under25

1 tha t i nqui ry , thi s C ourt m ust de te rm ine w he the r the co nduc t unde rl y ing the m ult ipl e 2 offenses w as unitary

and whether, considering th e statute s at issue, the L egislature 3 in te nd edto crea te sep arat el y pu ni sh ab le off

en se s. Id

. ¶ 25. R am ir ez c an not

c ar ry the 4 burden im

posed by the second prong of the Sw aff ord test. T he Le gislature intend ed 5 to pun ish the separate cr im es of child abuse, aggravated a ssault, and m urder 6 s e p a r a t e l y. 7 { 43} “ If ea ch s t a tu t e r e qu i r e s p r o o f o f af a c tt h a tt h e o t h e r

d o e s n o t , i tm a y

be 8 inferre d that the Legislature intended to autho rize separ ate punishm ents und er e ach 9 statute.” Swick , 2 0 1 2

- N M S C

- 0 1 8 , ¶ 1 3 ( c i t ing Sw aff

ord , 1991-NMS C-043, ¶ 12). 10 Co m pa ri ng the e le m en ts o f the thr ee statut es a t i ssu e, e ac h st at ute r equir es pr oof

of 11 a fact th atth e o th er t wo s ta tu te s d o n ot req ui re. Co m pare § 30 -2 -1 (A )( 1) ( re qui ri ng 12 th e St at e to pro ve a de li be rat e in te nt to ki ll ), wi th § 30 -3 -2 (A ) (r equir ing the state to 13 prove that the offender’ s conduct caused the victim to believe that the defendant was 14 ab out to intru de on the vic tim ’ s bo dil y int eg rit y or pe rsona l sa fe ty by tou ch ing or 15 ap pl y in g fo rce t o t he vi ct im in a ru de , in so le nt , or a ng ry m an ne r), and

§ 3 0- 6- 1( D) 16 (requirin g t he s t a t e t o pr ov e t ha tt he o f f e nd e r p l a c e d ac hi l d i n as i tua t i ont ha t 17 en da nge re d th e ch ild ’ s li fe ). O the r ind ic iaof le gis la tiv e int en t a lso sug ge st tha t the 18 Leg is la tu re i nt en de d t o p un is h t he se cri m es se pa rat el y . Se e Sw aff ord , 1991-NMS C-26

1 043, ¶ 31 (c lari fy ing tha t “ if the el em en ts o f the statut es a re not sub sum ed

one w ith in 2 the other, then the Blockburger te st r ai se s on ly apr es um pti on tha t the statut es pun ish 3 dis tin ct of fe nse s . . . [whic h] m ay be ove rc om e by oth er ind ic iaof

le gis la tiv e int en t” 4 like “ the language, histo ry , and subject of the statutes”). He re, the three statutes are 5 quite different and address distin ct social evils. The presum ption by the Blockburger 6 str ic t- el em en ts t es t i s no t ov er co m e. R am ir ez ’ s doub le -d es cr ipt ionc ha lle nge s to the 7 ch ild -a buse a nd a ggr av at ed -a ssa ult c onvi ct ion s f

ai l. 8 2. U ni t of

p ro se cu ti on 9 { 44} Ram ir ez a lso a rg ue s th at the se pa rate pun ish m en ts f or the thr ee co unt s of

c hil d 1 0 ab u s e b y e n d a n g e rmen tv i o l a t e d o ub l e je o p a r d y u n d e r au n i t - o f

- p r o s e c u t i o n t h e o ry. 11 H e co nte nds tha t the thr ee c ount s sh oul d have m er ge d in to o ne sin gle c ount . F or the 12 re as ons tha t f

oll ow , w e re

j ec t this a rg um en t. 13 a. Cont rolling legal standards 14 { 45} Inauni t- of

-p ro se cu tio n c as e, “ the de fe ndant h as be enc ha rg ed w ithm ult ipl e 15 vio la tio ns o f a sin gle statut e ba se d ona si ngl e co ur se of c ondu ct . T he r el ev an t 16 inquir y . . . is w he the r the le gis la tur e int en de d pu ni sh m en t for the e nti re c our se of 17 conduct or for each discre te act. ” Sw aff ord , 199 1- N MS C- 043, ¶

8. “ [T ] he onl y

ba sis 18 for dism issal is proo f that a suspect is charged w ith m ore counts of t he sam e statutory27

1 crim e th an i s s tatutorily authorized.” Sta te v . B ernal , 200 6- N MS C- 050, ¶ 13, 140 2 N
. M. 644 , 146 P
. 3d 289. “ T he iss ue , tho ugh es se nti al ly c onst itu tio na l, be co m es one 3 of statutory

construction .” H

erron , 199 1- N MS C- 012, ¶ 6. 4 { 46} “ [T ] he uni t of p ro se cu tio n f or ac ri m e is the a ct

us r eu s, the phy sic al c ondu ct of 5 the defendant.” United States v. Prestenbach , 230 F. 3 d 7 8 0 , 783 (5th Cir. 2000 ). 6 “ Co urts c onsi de r the e le m en ts o f a cr im e m or e of te n th anac ri m ina l st at

ute ’ s un it of 7 prosecution

. The tw o can easily be confused but are conceptually distin ct.” United 8 Sta tes v . R en tz , 777 F. 3d 1105, 1117 (10th Cir

. 2015 ) (Matheson , J ., c oncurring). 9 “ The e lem ents of an offense def ine what m

ust be proved to convict a defendant of a 10 crim e. ” Id

. “ By c ontra st, the uni t of

pr osec ut ion de fi ne s howm anyof fe nse s th e 11 defendant has com

m itted. It dete rm ines whether c ondu ct constitut es one or several 12 violatio ns of a singl e statutory provisi on.” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 13 om itted). 14 { 47} T o de te rm ine the L eg isl at ur e’ s in te nt w ithr es pe ct

to the uni t of

pr ose cu tio n f

or 15 a cri m in al off

en se , we app ly a two- st ep tes t. B ernal , 200 6- N MS C- 050, ¶ 14. “ Fi rs t, 16 we review the statutory language f or guid ance on the un it of prosecution .” Id

. “ T he 17 plain langu age of the statute is th e p ri m ar y indicator of legislative int ent.” State v. 18 O lss on , 201 4- N MS C- 012, ¶ 18, 324 P. 3d 1 230. “ If

the statut or

y langua ge spe lls out28

1 the uni t of pr os ec uti on, the n w e fo llo w the langua ge , a nd the uni t- of -p ro se cu tio n 2 inqu iry is com plete.” B ernal , 2006-NMS C-050, ¶ 14. “ If the language is not clear, 3 the n w e m ove to the se co nd s te p, in w hic h w e de te rm ine w he the r a de fe ndant’ s a ct s 4 ar e se pa rate d by

suf fi ci en t i ndi ci a of

dis tinct ne ss to j ust if

y m ult ipl e puni shm en ts 5 under the sam e statute.” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ If the 6 acts are not sufficiently distin ct, then the rule of lenity m andates an interpretation that 7 the le gis la tur e did

not int en d m

ult ipl e puni shm en ts, a nd a de fe ndant c an no t be 8 puni shed for m

ultip le crim es.” Id

. 9 b. St ep on e: p lai n lan gu age 10 { 48} Section 30-6-1(D) (1) provides as follows: “ Abuse of a c hild con sists o f a 11 pe rs on know ing ly , int en tio na lly or ne gli ge ntl y , a nd w ith out

j ust if ia ble c au se , c au sin g 12 or perm itting a child to be . .

. placed in a situation that m ay endanger the child’ s life 13 or health . .

. .” Can w e discern from this langu age w hat our Legislature intended as 14 to the uni t of

pr ose cu tio n? W e se e tw o po ssi bilit ie s. B ut b ef or e tur nin g to tho se 15 poss ibi lit ie s, w e m ak e tw o ob se rv at ion s. 16 { 49} W e fi rs t ob se rv e tha t the N ewMe xic o app el la te c ourts h av e ne ve r square ly 17 addressed whether the statutory language of Section 30-6-1(D) (1) clearly articulates 18 a uni t of

pr ose cutio n. R ev ie w of

the Co urt of Ap pe al s’ tr ea tm en t of thi s is sue r ev ea ls29

1 tha t st ep one ha s be enove rl ooke d. I n Sta te v . Ca sta ñe da , the Cour t co rrec tly 2 ide nti fi ed

the two-s te p un it- of

-p ro se cu tio n ana ly sis , but ski ppe d st ep one w ith out 3 ex plana tio n. 200 1- N MC A -0 52, ¶ ¶ 12- 18, 130 N
. M. 679 , 30 P. 3d 368. T he n, in Sta te 4 v. Chavez , the Co urt c ite d Ca sta ñe da a s having su ffi ci en tly se ttl ed ste p on e of

the 5 an al y si s. Chavez , 20 08 -NMCA- 12 6, ¶ 1 8, 1 45 N.M. 11 , 1 93 P.3 d 5 58 , rev’d on other 6 grou nds by 20 09 -NMSC -0 35 , ¶¶ 3, 53 , 14 6 N.M. 43 4, 21 1 P .3d 89 1. Ca sta ñe da did 7 not se ttl e the a na ly sis

. 8 { 50} W e al so o bse rv e tha t S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) e nc om pa sse s a buse by 9 en da nge rm en t tha t r es ult s inphy sic al or em oti ona l i nj ur y a s w el l a s th ose 10 ci rcu m st an ces wher e th e ab us edch il d s uf fers no in jury o f an y

ki ndat a ll

. Co m

pare 11 Sta te v . L uja n , 198 5- N MC A -1 11, ¶ ¶ 5, 16, 103 N
. M. 667, 712 P
. 2d 1 3 ( co nc lud ing 12 tha t the de fe ndant end an ge re d a chil d’ s lif e in viol at ion of the abuse by e ndange rm en t 13 statute where he an d s ev eral c om panion s, w hile driving , thre w bottles and other 14 obj ec ts at the oc cu

pa nts of a nothe r m ovi ng v eh ic le a nd h it the inf an t- vic tim -o cc upant 15 on the he ad

w he n on e of

the thr ow n ob

j ec ts e nte re d th e targ ete d ve hic le a nd 16 ric oc he te d i n t he in fan t’s d ire ct io n) , and Sta te v . T ruj illo , 200 2- N M C A

- 1 00, ¶ 20, 132 17 N. M. 649, 53 P. 3d 90 9 (“ [T ] here m ay be instances when the risk of em otion al harm 18 fr om asim ilar inc ide nt m igh t be suf fi ci en t t o supp or t a convi ct ionba se d on30

1 en da ng erm en t.”) , wi th C astañe da , 2001-NMC A- 052, ¶ 15 (“ Pursuant to the statute, 2 a pe rs on m ay

be gui lty of c hil d a buse ev en if the ch ild is n ot a ct ua lly harm ed

. ”) ; see 3 als o § 30 -6 -1 (E ), ( F) , ( G ), (H ) (a ppor tio nin g di ff

er en t pe na lti es f

or tho se w ho c om

m it 4 abuse of a child depending upon whether the abuse does no t c au s e g r e a tb o d i l y h a rm, 5 does cause grea t bodi ly harm , or causes death). 6 { 51} Re tur

nin g no w to w he the r the uni t of pr osec uti on i s c le ar f ro m the pla in 7 language of t he statute, th e first poss ible resolution to this issue arises from the fac t 8 tha t, a s we ha ve j ust obs er ve d, ade fe ndant m ay

be c onvi ct ed

of abuse by 9 en da nge rm en t e ve n w he re the re is no evid en ce the abuse d c hil d w as inj ur ed

. I nde ed , 10 the endangered child m ay be entirely o b livio us to th e endangerm ent. T his fact 11 sugg es ts tha t S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) is not con ce rn ed w ithr es ult an t c onse que nc es , a nd 12 th is vi ew f

ind s su ppor t i n ou r ca se law . W e ha ve pr ev iou sly e xpl ai ne d th at

“ the 13 le gis la tiv e pur

po se tha t anim at es the c hil d e ndange rm en t st at ute [ is] to puni sh 14 conduct

that crea tes a truly

significant risk of serious h arm to chil d ren.” Chavez , 15 2009 -N MS C- 035, ¶

22 ( em pha sis a dde d)

. T hus, one r ea din g of the statut e is tha t i ts 16 gr av am en is th e p ro hi bi ti on of c on du ct . Se e U nit ed Sta tes v . E

va ns , 854 F
. 2d 5 6, 60 17 (5th Cir. 1988 ) (co n s i d er i ng the gravam en of a c rim inal statute to determ ine that 18 sta tut e’ s un it of

pr ose cu tio n) ; Sta te v. H

ouse , 200 1- N MC A -0 11, ¶ 20, 130 N
. M. 418 ,31

1 25 P.3d 257 (sam e) ; H arr is v

. Sta te , 359 S
. W
. 3d 62 5, 632 (T ex . Cr im

. App. 201 1) 2 (s am e)

. I n othe r w or ds, Se ct ion 30- 6- 1( D )( 1) ac hie ve s its pur pose s by f oc usi ng o n 3 an d pr ohi bit ing ac our se of c ondu ct a nd n ot b y

f oc usi ng o n th e re sul tant 4 co ns eq ue nc es of th atpro hi bi te d c on du ct . Cf

. Ebe lin g v . Sta te , 91 P
. 3d 5 99, 601 ( N ev . 5 20 04 ) (co nc lu di ng t h atth e d is tri ctco ur t er redin sen te nc in g t he de fen da nt to two 6 co unt s of

ind ec en t e xpos ur e— one count f or e ac h of the tw o vi ct im s to w hic h th e 7 de fe ndant e xpos ed

him se lf —be ca use N ev ad a’ s inde ce nt exp osur e sta tut e “ doe s no t 8 require proof of intent to offend an o b s er ver” or pr oof “ that the expos ure w as 9 observed” but requires only“ that the pub lic sexual condu ct or ex posu re w as 10 int en tio na l” (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )) ; H arr is , 359 S. W .3d at 1 1 632 (c o n c l u d i n g t h a t “ t h e g r a v a m e n o f t h e o f f e n s e o f i n d e c e n c y w i t h a c h i l d by 12 ex posure is the a ct

of e xpos ur e[ , ] ” tha t “ [t ] he a llo w ab le uni t of pr ose cu tio n f

or the 13 of fe nse is the a ct

of e xpos ur e, ” an d th at

the de fe ndant co mm itt ed onl y one a ct of 1 4 i n d e c e n c y d e s p i t e t h e f a c tt h a t“h e e x p o s e dh i ms e l f t o t h r e e c h i l d r e n a tt h e s a me 15 tim e” ). S pe ci fi ca lly , the statut e pr ohi bit s ca usi ng or pe rm itt ing

a child to be placed 16 in a sit

ua tio n tha t en da nge rs tha t ch ild ’ s lif e or he al th. S ta te d ingr am m at ic al te rm s, 17 the uni t of pr ose cu tio n f or S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) is boun d up in the ve rb s “ ca usi ng” 18 or “ perm itting .” Se e R en tz , 777 F
. 3d a t 11 09 (“ W he n se ek ing astatut e’ s un it of32

1 pr ose cu ti on . . . th e fe at ur e tha t na tur al ly

dr aw s our im

m ed ia te a tte nti on i s th e 2 sta tut e’ s ve rb

. T his c om es a s no sur pr ise , of co ur se , as the ve rb sup pli es the a ct ion 3 or doing part of m ost any sentence, statutory

or otherwise. ”). 4 { 52} T he se co nd possi bil ity w e pe rc ei ve a s to w ha t the uni t of pr ose cu tio n m igh t be 5 ba se d onthe pla in la ngua ge of the sta tut e re sts on the fa ct tha t def en da nts can on ly 6 en ga ge in ab use of

ac hil d by

e ndangerm en t if th eyc au se or pe rm ita c hil

d to be 7 pla ce d inasit

ua tio n of e ndange rm en t. S ta te d gr am m at ic al ly , the sta tut e co nta ins a 8 dir ec t ob

j ec t tha t is the re ci pie nt of the a ct ion s of S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) ’ s ve rb s, a nd 9 tha t dir ec t obj ec t is a sin gul ar noun . T his sug ge sts tha t our L eg isl at ur e int en de d th e 10 pr ote ct ion s of Se ct ion 30- 6- 1( D )( 1) to a tta chto ea ch c hil d e ndange re d, a nd this , in 11 tur n, sug ge sts tha t the uni t of pr ose cu tio n f

or S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) is byc hil d

. See 12 H arr is , 3 5 9 S. W .3d at 630 (“ [A ] legislative refer ence to an item in the sing ular 13 sugg ests that each i n s t an ce of that item is a separa te unit of prosecutio n.” ( internal 14 quot at ion m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed )) ; se e als o P eo ple v . San Ni co las , 200 1 Guam 15 4 ¶ 21 ( obse rv ing tha t G ua m ’ s c hil d abus e sta tut e “ re fe rs to a pe rs on’ s a ct ion s w ith 16 regard to ‘a child’” and, th eref ore, concludin g that “ it is evident th at the legislature 17 int en de d th at

e ac h se pa rate ch ild be the ap pr opr ia te uni t of pr ose cu tio n” ); cf

. P eo ple 18 v. A rza bala , 201 2 C O A 99 ¶ ¶ 27, 29 ( co nc luding tha t the uni t of pr ose cu tio n f

or33

1 Co lor ad o’ s st at

ute c ri m ina liz ing le av ing the sc en e of an ac ci de nt is per a cc ide nt s ce ne 2 be ca use the c om

po un d nou n “ ac ci de nt s ce ne ” ap pe ar s r ep ea te dly in sin gul ar

f orm a nd 3 is pre ced edby a defi ni te art ic le ). 4 { 53} Si gni fi cantl y , our L eg isl at ur e cho se not

to em plo y the phr as e “ an y

c hil d” or the 5 w or d “ ch ildre n” in p la ce of “ a ch ild

. ” H ad it don e so, S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) w oul d 6 ha ve e xpr es sly

c ont em pla te d th at

m or e th an on e child

m ay be a ff ec te d by asin gle 7 co ur se of

abuse by e ndange rm en t and this , in tur n, w oul d su gge st tha t the f oc us o f the 8 st atut e is th e pr oh ib it io n of co nd uc t to ward s a p art ic ul ar cl as s o f pe rs on s. Se e Sta te 9 v. G re en wo od , 201 2- N MC A -0 17, ¶ 38, 271 P
. 3d 7 53 ( “ [T ] he L eg isl at ur e know s ho w 10 to includ e language in a statute if it so desires.” (alter at i o n in origin al) (inter nal 11 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). O ur L egislature did no t do this and instead 12 spe ci fi ca lly

pr ohi bit ed

the c om m iss ionof

c er ta in a ct s ag ai nst a sin gul ar a nd d isc re te 13 en tity : “ a ch ild

. ” I t is w el l e sta bli she d—s o m

uc h so tha t the pr opos iti on i s r ep ea te dly 14 ex pr es se d innon -p re ce de nti al opi nio ns—tha t wh er e a sta tut e pr ohi bit s the doi ng o f 15 som e ac t t o avic tim

spe ci fi ed by asin gul ar noun , “ a per son” fo r ex am ple , the n “ the 16 pe rs on ” is th e u n i t o f p r o s ecu ti on . Se e Sta te v . V ega , N o. 33,363, dec. ¶ 60 (N .M. 17 Su p. Ct
. Jan. 9, 2014 ) (n on- pr ec ed en tia l) (“ [W ] e ag re e w ith the St at e tha t, und er our 18 fi rs t- de gr ee m

ur de r sta tut e, the uni t of pr ose cu tio n is una m big uous : the kil lin g of

one34

1 hum an being by another.

. . . The num ber of m urder char ges depends o n the num ber 2 of vic tim s. T he not iontha t on e de ath sh oul d r es ult in onl y one hom ic ide c onvi ct ion 3 is f irm ly e m be dd ed in our

j ur isp ru de nc e. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 4 om it te d) ); Sta te v . A rm en dari z , N o . 2 9 , 1 0 1 , m e m . o p . ¶ 2 3 ( N
. M
. C t . Ap p . M a y

1, 5 2012 ) (non-prece dential) (“ The nature of assault offenses encapsulates their personal 6 na tur e an d the indi vid

ua l vic tim

a s th e pr ope r uni t of

pr ose cu tio n. ”) ; St at e v. Cl ymo , 7 No. 30,005, m em . op. ¶ 29 (N .M. C t . App. A ug. 16, 2010) (non-precedential) (“ It 8 appears that the w ording o f the statute evinces a legislative intent to pun ish each act 9 of fa lse im

pr iso nm en t a ga ins t e ac h pe rs on. ”) ; H ouse , 2001 -N MC A -0 11, ¶ 20 ( “ [T ] he 10 subj ec t of

pun ish m en t of

ve hic ular ho m icide is the killing o f anot her , not

the 11 unl aw fu l oper at ion of am oto r ve hic le

. ” (e m

pha sis a dde d) ). A ll of

thi s po int s to the 12 co nc lus iontha t the uni t of pr ose cu tio n f

or S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) is by c hil d. 13 { 54} Policy

considerations further suppo rt this latter interpretation of the statute. 14 See State v. Ogden , 199 4- N MS C- 029, ¶ 27, 118 N
. M. 234 , 880 P
. 2d 8 45 ( “ [T ] he 15 langua ge of

pe na l st at

ute s sh oul d be giv enar ea sona ble or c om m on s en se 16 co nstru ct ionc onso na nt w ith the obj ec ts o f the le gis la tio n, a nd the e vil s so ught to be 17 ove rc om e shou ld b e giv en spe ci al a tte nti on. ”)

. “ [W ] he re the re is but asin gle vio le nt 1 8 a c ta n dmu l t i p l e v i c t i ms , t h e s o c i e t a l h a rm i s g r e a t e r . A n d , t h u s , t h e g r e a t e r t h e h a rm,35

1 the gr ea te r the ne ed to de te r suc h co nduc t. T o hol d oth er w ise w ou ld en co ur age 2 singl e-ac t-m

ultip le-victim -ty

pe crim es.” Sta te v. J

ohns on , 198 5- N MC A -0 74, ¶ 41, 3 103 N
. M. 364, 707 P. 2d 1174
. T o de fi ne the uni t of pr ose cu tio n fo r Secti on 30- 6- 4 1( D )( 1) by

c our se of co nduc t co uld

e nc our ag e w oul d- be pe rp etrator s of c hil d a buse 5 by en da nge rm en t to endange r as m an y c hil dr ena s po ssi ble if

the y e ndange r an y

c hil d 6 at all. O ur L egislature could not have m eant this. Ra ther, it m ust have inten ded that 7 ther e be a c or

r e l a t i on be t w e e n t he nu m be r of c hi l dr e n e nd a ng e r e d a nd t he total 8 exposu re to punish m ent. T his reasoning has particular force in this context given that 9 our Legislature has concluded that crim es ag ai n s t children sugg est heightened 10 cu lpa bil ity a nd tha t on e pur

pose of the c hild- ab use -b y -e ndange rm en t st at ute is to 11 as su re t he pr ot ect io n o f ch il dr en , a hi gh ly vul ne rab le po pu la ti on . State v. Santilla nes , 12 2001 -N MS C- 018, ¶

24, 130 N
. M. 464 , 27 P
. 3d 4 56. 13 { 55} Ou r d i s cu s s i o n o f th es e tw o p o s s i b l e i n t er p re t at i o n s o f S ec t i o n 3 0 -6 -1 (D )( 1 )’s 14 uni t of

pr ose cu tio n de m onstrate s th er e ar e tw o e qua lly va lid w ay s of thi nki ng a

bout 15 th e u ni t o f pr os ecu ti on forth is st atut e: eit he r by con du ctor b y ou tc om e. As 16 argum ents on either side have equal force and validit y , w e conclude that the statuto ry 17 la ng ua g e i s a mb i g uo us as t o t he un it of p ro se cu ti on . See M aestas v. Zager , 18 2007 -N MSC- 003, ¶ 9, 141 N. M. 154 , 152 P. 3d 141 (“ A statute is am bigu ous when36

1 it can be und er sto od b y r ea sona bly w el l- inf orm ed pe rs ons in tw o or

m or e dif fe re nt 2 se nse s. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ))

. W e m ove to ste p tw o of the 3 uni t- of -p ro se cu tio n ana ly sis

. 4 c. St ep 2: in di ci a of d ist in ct ne ss 5 { 56} U nde r the se co nd s te p of the uni t- of

-p ro se cu tio n ana ly sis , w e “ de te rm ine 6 whether a d efendant’ s acts are separated by sufficient indicia of distin ctness to justify 7 m ultip le pu n i s hm ents und er the sam e statute.” B ernal , 200 6- N MS C- 050, ¶ 14 8 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s a n d c it at io n o m it te d) . Our ca se law i ns tru ct s t ha t we 9 consider the tem

poral proxim ity

of the acts, the location of the victim (s) during each 1 0 ac t , t h e e x i s t en ce o f a n i n t er v e n i n g ev en t , t h e s eq u en ci n g o f a ct s , t h e d ef en d an t ’s 11 int en t a s e vin ce d by

his or he r co nducta nd u tte ranc es , a nd the num be r of vic tim s. 12 Se e id. ¶

¶ 15, 17; H

erron , 1991-NMS C-012, ¶ 15. If our anal ysis in dicates that 1 3 R a mi r e z ’s c o n du c tc o n s t i tu t e s “s e p a r a t e o f f e n s e s u n d e r t h e s t a tu t e , w e w i l l p r e s u me 14 tha t t o be the le gis la tiv e int en t, unt il the L eg isl at ur e am en ds the statut e to i ndi ca te 15 otherwise. ” Sta te v . M orr o , 199 9- N MC A -1 18, ¶ 11, 127 N
. M. 763 , 987 P
. 2d 4 20. 16 { 57} W e have previously observed that the n u m

b er -of-victim s factor has special 17 signi ficance : “ [M] ultip le v ictim s will likely give rise to m

ultip le offenses. ” H

erron , 18 1991 -N MS C- 012, ¶

15; se e als o B ernal , 2006-NM S C

- 05 0, ¶ 1 8 ( “ W hi l e the existence37

1 of m ult ipl e vic tim s do es not , it se lf , se ttl e w he the r co nduc t is uni tary or dis tin ct , it

is 2 a str ong ind ic at or

of le gis la tiv e int en t t o pu nis h di sti nct c ondu ct tha t c anonl y

be 3 overcom e by

other fac tors.”)

. This case invo lved m ultip le child victim s who suffer ed 4 dis tin ct m en ta l i nj ur ie s a s a c onse que nc e of Ram ir ez ’ s a ct ion s. C ar

m en , N ikk i, a nd 5 Mi ch ae l e ac h te sti fi ed to the m en ta l angui sh the y ind ivi dua lly

e xpe ri en ce d w hil e 6 Ram ir ez sho t V ia lpando nin e tim es . Carm ente sti fi ed tha t, a t the ti m e of

the sho oti ng, 7 she thou ght th at she and her fam ily would all die. It w as patently rea sonable for her 8 to fear this po tentiality . All th ree children testified that they we re in fear and shock 9 as they witnessed Ram irez shoot into the vehicle in which they and Vialpando wer e 10 sittin g and kill Via lpando

. The num ber o f sh ots fired is signi ficant. Bullets entered 11 and exi t e d V i a l pand o. T he c hanc e t ha ta ny o ne o f t he c hi l dr e n m i gh th a ve been 12 struck by

one of the bullets fired into and th rough Vialpando increa sed as the num ber 13 of shots fired increased. In light of these facts, we are persuaded that our Legislature 14 intended m

ultip le punish m ents in thi s case. 15 d. C on cl us ion : u ni t of p ro se cu ti on 16 { 58} Inthe c ir cu m stanc es of thi s ca se in w hic h ea ch of the thr ee c hil dr ense pa rate ly 1 7 t es t i fi ed t o t h e f

ea r a n ds h o ckt h ey re s p e c t i v e l y s u ff er ed as a r es u l to f R amir ez ’s 18 w an tonc ondu ct , w e hold tha t the L eg isl at

ur e int en de d pr ose cu tio n f or thr ee c ount s38

1 of c hil d a buse by en da nge rm en t. Ram ir ez ’ s thr ee co nvi ct ion s for ch ild ab use do n ot 2 v i o l a t e d o ub l e je o p a r d y. 3 III. CON CLU SION 4 { 59} Ram ir ez ’ s c onvi ct ionf or sho oti ng a t a m oto r ve hic le is va ca te d. H is r em ai nin g 5 co nvi ct ion s are a ff

irm ed

. W e re m an d th is m at te r to the dis tr ic t c ourt f or r es en te nc ing

. 6 { 60} IT IS SO ORD ERE D
.

7

____ ____ ___ __ __ __ __ ________ ____ ____ _ 8 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice39

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

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

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 5 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 7 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 9 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice