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: M ar ch 12, 201 5 4 N O. 33, 967 5 STA TE OF NE W MEX ICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v
. 8 NATHAN MONTO YA, 9 D ef

en dant- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF RIO A RRIBA C OUN TY 11 Mi ch ae l E

. V igi l, D istri ct Jud ge
12 Jorge A. Alvar ado, Chief Public De fender 13 Nicole S . Mur

ray , A ssistant Appellate D efender 14 San ta Fe, NM 15 fo r Appe llant
16 Gary K. King, Attorney

Ge neral 17 Jacqueline R. M edina, A ssistant Attorney Ge neral 18 San ta Fe, NM 19 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Ch ief Justice . 3 { 1} T his c as e pr es en ts an oth er e xa m ple of the ong oin g c onf

usi on c re at ed

by our 4 ch ild ab use j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns. Br eandr a Pe na( Ba by Br eandr a) , a ge se ve nte enm onths, 5 die d w hil e in the c ar e of N athan Mon toy a (D ef

en dant)

. D ef

en dant w as c onvi ct ed

of 6 int en tio na l c hil d a

buse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d un de r tw el ve c ontrary to 7 NMSA 1 97 8, Se ct io n 3 0- 6- 1( D), (H) (2 00 9) an d s en te nc edto li fe i m pr is on m en t. 8 { 2} Inour

r ev ie wof D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionon dir ec t appe al , w e fi rs t hold tha t the 9 j ur y ins tr uc tio ns use d in D ef

en dant’ s tri al ac curate ly ins tr uc te d the j ur

y of the lawa nd 10 did no t constitu te reversible error . W e determ ine that, when considered as a whole, 11 the instructio ns used in this case are distin guish able from those used in previous cases 12 w hic h w e ha ve r ev er se d ba se d one rr one ous ch ild abuse j ur y ins tr uc tio ns. W e al so 13 hol d th at

r ec kle ss c hil d a

buse m ay , in som e ca se s, be ale sse r inc lud ed off en se of 14 int en tio na l c hil d a

buse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d un de r tw el ve , a nd d isavow 15 Ne w Mexico cases su ggestin g otherwise. Ac cordingly , we deter m ine that when a j ury 16 is c or re ct ly ins tr uc te d onboth r ec kle ss an d in te nti ona l c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the 17 de at h o f a ch il d u nd er t welv e, a s te p- do wn i ns tru ct io n i s ap pr op ria te . 18 { 3} N ex t, w e hol d th at the a dm iss ionof af or en sic pa tho log ist ’ s e xpe rt te sti m ony 19 w as not

in er ro r an d th at

suf fi ci en t e vid en ce w as pr es en te d to c onvi ct Defend an t.2

1 Fi na lly , w e hol d tha t it w as abuse of dis cr et ionf

or the dis tr ic t c ourt j udge to re fu se 2 t o co n s i d erm i t i g at i n g t h e b as i c s en t en ce o f l i fe i m p ri s o n m en t , ba s ed o n t h e c o u rt ’s 3 m ist ak enund er standi ng tha t the li fe se nte n c e w as m an da tor y a nd c oul d no t be a lte re d. 4 D ef en dant’ s c onvictio n f

or int en tio na l c hil d a

buse is af

fi rm ed a nd the c as e is 5 rem anded to the dis trict co u rt for resentencing with consid eration of potential 6 m it ig at in g c irc um st an ces . 7 I. BACKGRO UND 8 A. Fact s 9 { 4} Ba

by Br eandr a w as bor

n to Me lis sa

Ro m er o ( Mothe r) a nd A ndr ew P en a on 10 Se p t ember 24, 2009 . Mother occasionally asked her cousin, E dwar dine Fernandez 11 (Ferna nd ez), Br ean dr a’s go dm ot he r, an d Def en da nt to lo okaft er Baby Brea nd ra. On 12 Marc h 4, 201 1, w he n B ab y Breand ra w as se ve nte enm onths o ld, F er nande z an d 13 D ef en dant p ic ke d up Ba

by Br eandr a fr om Mothe r’ s hom e in A lbu que rque a nd t ook 14 he r to the ir

hom e in E spañol a fo r the w ee ke nd. Whe n F er nande z an d D ef

en dant 15 picked up Baby Breandra from Mother, she had no si gns of bu m ps or bruises on her 1 6 b o d y. 17 { 5} On March 8, 2011 , F ernandez w as at w ork by 7:00 a.m . at St. Vincent H ospit al 18 in S an taF e, le av ing D ef en dant at hom e al one w ithBa by Br eandr a. F er

nande z w as in3

1 co nta ct w ithD ef en dant r eg ularl y

thr ough out

the day , about

onc e anhour. A t abou t 2 9:0 0 a
. m . , D ef

en dant’ s f ri en d D er ek

V igi l ( V igi l) vis ite d D ef en dant at ho m e. V igi l 3 le ft a round 11: 30 a
. m . or

noo n. Whe n V igi l l ef

t, he did not se e an y sig ns tha t B ab y 4 Br eandr a w as in dis tr es s. 5 { 6} A ro und 1:4 2 p. m . , D ef en dant c al le d 91 1 and to ld the ope rator that B ab y 6 Br eandr a ha d be ente ething , h ad not be enf ee lin g w el l, ha d be enthr ow ing up, a nd 7 w as not

c om ing ba ck . De fen da nt r ep orte d th at Ba by Br eandr a sti ll ha d ahe ar tbe at . 8 H e did not r ep ort tha t the ba

by ha d f al le n inthe ba tht

ub, or tha t he dro ppe d he r, a s he 9 la te r cl ai m ed

. P ar am ed ic s w er e dis pa tc he d in r es pons e to a c hil d havin g di ff

ic ulty 10 br eathi ng. Whil e enr out e to the sc en e, the param ed ic s r ec ei ve d an up da te that the 11 ch ild ha d st oppe d br eathi ng, a nd a se co nd u pda te that the c hil d ha d no he ar tbe at . 12 { 7} T he param ed ic s arr ive d a t D ef en dant’ s ho m e at 1:4 8 p. m . Whe n the y a rr ive d, 13 D ef en dant w as s ta nd ing in the doo rw ay hol din g B ab y

Br eandr a, w ho w as li m p, 14 nonr es pons ive , an d pa le. T he param ed ic s no te d th at Ba by Br eandr a ha d br

uis ing 15 through out her body , includi ng m arks on her chest and belly and a scra pe on her nose, 16 and that her ear s we re r ed, bruised, and swollen. T he param edics im m ediately began 17 lif e sa vin g m ea sur es on B ab y Br eandr a, but

kne wshe w as de ad as soon as the y got 18 her on the gurney

in the am bulance.4

1 { 8} Randy

Sanchez, one of the respondin g param ed i cs , te stified as an expert 2 w itn es s inthe fi el d of E MT param ed ic s. Mr
. Sanc he z te sti fi ed that ba se d onhe r co ol, 3 pa le ski n, he be lie ve d B ab y Br eandr a w as de ce as ed

be fo re D ef

en dant p la ce d th e ca ll 4 to 911 . I n h i s opin ion, the baby ’ s injuries w ere not cons istent with chokin g. Mr
. 5 Sanc he z sa id i t w as f

ai rl y obv iou s th at

the ba by ha d su sta ine d tr au m at ic inj ur ie s. 6 { 9} De puty Jason G allegos of the Rio Ar riba County

Sherif f’ s Of fice te stified that 7 he wa s disp atched to a call r egarding an unrespon sive baby at D efendant’ s hom e. 8 D eput y G al le gos ap pr oa ch ed

D ef en dant and a ske d hi m

w ha t ha ppe ne d. D ef

en dant 9 tol d D ep uty

G al le gos tha t he had be en w at ch ing Ba by Br eandr a an d sh e w as te ethin g 10 an d gr um py . D ef en dant s ai d he a nd B ab y

Br eandr a w ere si tti ng o n th e be d, e at ing 11 ch ee se a nd c ra ck er s and watc hin g car too ns. Ba by Br eandr a w oul dn’ t st op c ry ing , so 12 De fendant decided to giv e her a bath. D efendant said that after the bath, he decided 13 to p ut the ba

by dow n f or ana p, so h e la id h er

on the be d and g av e he r a sip py c up o f 14 m ilk

. D ef

en dant sa id Ba

by Br eandr a start ed ch oki ng on the m ilk an d sh e thr ewup a 15 lig ht b ro w n su

bst an ce . D ef

en dant s ai d he pa tt ed her on the ba ck to tr y to dis lod ge 16 w ha te ve r the ba

by w as c hoki ng o n. A ft er

spe ak ing to D ep uty

G al le gos, D ef

en dant 17 cr ie d and p ac ed

a ro und the hou se , a ski ng i f the ba by w as ok. 18 { 10} In her statem ent to the pol ice, Fer nandez said that Def

endant called her earlier5

1 tha t day

a nd t ol d he r th at Ba

by Br eandr a w as f

uss y be ca use she w as te ethin g. 2 De fendant t o ld Fernandez that he gave B aby Bre andra T y lenol because she was 3 dr ool ing a nd f

el t f ev er ish , a nd h e ga ve he r som e O ra j el. Def en dant r ep orte d to 4 Fernandez that he susp ected the Or aj el m ade Baby Breandra throw up, and he called 5 911 b ecause she threwup an d was c hoki ng. A t trial, Fernandez recounted that at 6 12: 47 p
. m . , D ef

en dant h ad

c al le d to te ll he r tha t B ab y Br eandr a ha d f

al le n inthe 7 ba tht ub and s cr ap ed

he r nose , but

oth er w ise se em ed fi ne . Fe rn an de z sa id s he f or got 8 to t el l the pol ic e in h er

state m en t tha t D ef

en dant s ai d B ab y

Br eandr a ha d f

al le n inthe 9 tub

. 10 { 11} Agent Joey

Ga llegos in terview ed De fendant at the N ewMexico State P olice 11 O ff ic e in E spañol a. A ge nt G al le gos te sti fied that af te r he tol d D ef

en dant tha t B ab y 12 Br eandr a w as de ad , D ef en dant sa id, “ I sla

ppe d he r. I got he r by he r ears an d she 13 didn’ t w an t t o ke ep qui et . ” Whe n Age nt G al le gos show ed D ef en dant pic tur es of

Ba by 14 Br eandr a’ s in

j ur ie s and a ske d if

D ef en dant h ad

c au se d th em , D ef

en dant r es pond ed , 15 “ Ye ah , t h at one that she has, y eah. I did spank her and all of that. That’ s what I’m 16 say ing

. ” L at er

in his state m en t t o th e pol ic e, D ef en dant c la im ed

that the ba

by f el l i n 1 7 t h e b a t h tub , a n dt h a th e a c c i d e n t a l l y d r o p p e dh e r w h i l e r u n n i n g t o t h e l i v i n g r o o m. 18 { 12} Dr . C larissa K

rinsky , A ssistant P r of

e ss or o f P athology

at the U niversity

of N ew6

1 Mexico and Medical Investigator at the Of fice of the Medical Investigator, testified 2 as a n e xpe rt

in fo re nsi c pa tho log y . D r. K ri nsky sup er vis ed the auto psy

of Ba by 3 Br eandr a on M ar ch9, 201 1. D r. K ri nsky obse rv ed ab ra sio ns co ve ri ng larg e ar ea s of 4 both sides of the baby ’ s head and contus ions o n both ear s. D r. Kr i n s k y opin ed that 5 the inj ur ie s to Ba

by Br eandr a’ s e ar s w er e int en tio na l, c au se d by som eo ne gr ab bin g 6 an d pu lli ng the m , a nd c oul d no t have be enc au se d by the ba by he rs el f. D r. K

ri nsky 7 sawbe tw ee n f

orty a nd f if ty br uis es on B ab y

Br eandr a’ s ba ck, c he st, an d a bdom en . 8 T he ba by a lso ha d su

bdur al a nd s ubara ch noi d he m or rh ag es on both si de s of

the br ai n, 9 indicative of sign ificant head t ra u m a. Dr . K rinsky said these ty

pes of injuries w ere 10 unlik ely

to be caused by

a fa ll in a b athtub. Dr . K

rinsky also found si gnificant internal 11 ab dom ina l i nj ur ie s, w hic h sh e ch ar ac te ri ze d a s c la ssi c int en tio na l i nj ur ie s fo un d in 12 ch ildre n w ho w er e punc he d or kic ke d inthe sto m ac h. 13 { 13} D r. K

ri nsky sa id tha t B ab y

Br eandr a’ s de ath wa s the re sul t of m ult ipl e blunt 14 fo rc e inj ur ie s. D r. K ri nsky c onc lud ed

that the c onst el la ti on of inj ur ie s onBa by 1 5 Br ea ndr a’ s b o d y

w a s ar e s u l to f

i n t e n t i o n a l , n o n a c c i d e n t a l t r au m a , a n dt h a tt he 16 m anner of death w as hom icide, which she defined as death at the hands of anoth er. 17 B. Pr ocedur e 18 { 14} D ef

en dant w as c harg ed

w ithabuse of

ac hil d r es ult ing in the de ath of Ba by12 Whil e w e ac know le dge that “ ne gli ge nt c hil d a buse ” w as the langua ge in u se 1 13 at the tim e of D ef

en dant’ s ind ic tm en t an d tr ia l, w e now re fe r to it as “ re ck le ss c hil d 14 ab us e” i n a cc or danc e w ithour hol din g “ tha t w ha t ha s lo ng b ee n c al le d ‘ cr im ina lly 15 ne gli ge nt c hil d a

buse ’ sho uld he re af

te r be la be le d ‘ re ck le ss c hil d a

buse ’ w ith out

a ny 16 refe rence to neglig ence. ” Sta te v . Co nsau l , 201 4- N MS C- 030, ¶ 37, 332 P
. 3d 8 50. 17 Whil e w e re fe r in the te xt and r ec or d c itatio ns onl y to “ re ck le ss, ” w e do n ot e nde av or 18 in this opi nio n to r etro fi t e ve ry quo ta tio n c ont ai nin g r ef er en ce to “ ne gli ge nt” w ith 19 “ reckless. ” While Co nsau l a d d r e s s e dc h i l dab u s e c a s e s i n v o l v i n g g r e a tb o d i l y h a rm, 20 rathe r than de ath, the sa m e sta tut e co nta ini n g th e n o w - r e n o un c e d n e g l i g e n c e l angua ge 21 is at iss ue he re , an d thu s w e now ex pr es sly ad opt the sa m e ru le tha t “ ‘ cr im ina lly 22 ne gli ge nt c hil d a

buse ’ sho uld

he re af te r be la be le d ‘ re ck le ss ch ild ab use ’ w ith out a ny 23 refe ren ce t o n eg li ge nc e” fo r cas es of ch il d ab us e res ul ti ng in de at h. Se e id

. ¶ ¶ 35- 37. 7 1 B r e a n d r a , ac h i l du n d e r t w e l v e , c au s e db y k n o w i n g l y, i n t e n t i o n a l l y, o r r e c k l e s s l y, 1 2 an d w ith out j ust if

ia ble ca use , en dange ri ng, tortur ing , or cr ue lly puni shi ng the c hil d 3 co ntr ar y to Se ct ion s 30 -6 -1 (D )( 1) or ( 2) a nd ( H ). D ef

en dant w as c onvi ct ed

of 4 intentio nal child abus e re sultin g in the death of a child under twelve and sentenced 5 to l if e in p ri son. D ef

en dant a ppe al ed di rec tly to thi s C ourt purs uant t o R ule 12- 6 102(A)(1) NMR

A and Article VI , Section 2 of the Ne w Me xico Const itutio n. Further 7 p r o c e du r a l b a c k g r o u n di s p r o v i d e db e l o wa s n e c e s s a ry. 8 II. DISC US SION 9 { 15} De fend ant advances num erous argum ents on app eal, includin g: that the jury 10 ins tr uc tio ns u se d a t tri al w er e a m iss ta te m en t of the lawa nd m isl ed

the j ur y , tha t the 11 pa tho log ist ’ s e xpe rt

te sti m ony

about a“ co nst el la tio n of

inj ur ie s” on the baby

sho uld8

1 not have been adm itted, that the State failed to pre sent suff icient evidence to supp ort 2 De fendant’ s convictio n, that he re ceived ineff ec t i ve assistance of counsel, and that 3 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ai lur e to c ons i d e r

p o t e n t i a l m i t i g at i ng c ir cu m stanc es in se nte nc ing 4 D ef en dant w as a n a

buse of dis cr et ion

. W e ad dr es s e ac h arg um en t i n turn . 5 A. Jury Instruc tions 6 { 16} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

j ur y ins tr uc tio n nu m

be r thr ee er

ro ne ousl y co m

bin ed the 7 elem ents of both intentio nal and reckless child abuse, w hich Def endant asserts was 8 a m isstatem ent of the law , w as confusing to the jury , and constitu tes reversible er ror. 9 W e re ce ntl y

c lari fi ed a n a spe ct

of our U nif orm Jury In struc tio ns g ove rn ing c hil d 10 ab use tha t “ pot en tia lly co ntr ibu te [d ] to j ur y co nf usi on, re sul tin g in unj ust

c hil d a buse 11 convictio ns.” S

e e C o nsau l , 2014-NMS C-030, ¶ 38 (hold ing th at the L egislature 12 int en de d to r equir e pr oof of re ck le ssn es s to sus ta in a c onvi ct ionf

or ne gli ge nt c hil d 13 ab use an d re qui ri ng j ur ie s to be ins tr uc te d usi ng the r ec kle ss d isr eg ar d st an dard ). T his 14 case pre sents us with a sim ilar opportun ity to clarify two o t h er as p ec t s of our j ury 15 ins tr uc tio ns. W e cl ar if

y w he n se parate ins tr

uc tio ns ar e re qui re d to pr ove r ec kle ss o r 16 int en tio na l c hil d a

buse

. W e al so clari fy tha t in som e ci rc um stanc es , lik e in the c as e 17 at bar, r ec kle ss child ab use m ay be ale sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse of int en tio na l c hil d 18 ab us e.9

1 1. Pr ocedur al back ground 2 { 17} The c onfusi o n caused by the disso nance betwe en our case lawand our jury 3 ins tr uc tio ns f or c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the de ath of a ch ild und er

tw el ve is 4 ep ito m iz ed

by the a rg um en t w hic h to ok pla ce in the dis tr ic t c ourt be lowr eg ar din g th e 5 proper instruction s. Just before c losin g argum ents, the district court and the parties 6 he ld an e xte nsi ve dis cu ssi on a bout the c or re ct f orm of the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns. 7 { 18} T he S ta te be gan th e disc uss ion by not ing tha t “ [i ] n r eg ar ds t o th e el em en ts o f 8 the ch ild ab use c harg e— w el l, f or the r ec or d, thi s part ic ular ins tr uc tio n sh oul d have 9 be enc hange d per the hig he r Co urts b ac k inthe 90’ s and i t ne ve r w as , so i t’ s ki nd o f 10 a dif fi cu lt ins tr

uc tio n to w ork w ith

. ” T he S ta te tol d th e dis tr ic t c ourt tha t i t di d no t 11 “ w an t t o f

ollow the [ U nif

orm Jur y I nstru ct ion ] [ (] U JI [) ] w he n it c om es to re ck le ss 12 disregard and intentio nal.” The S tate re cognized that “ [w ] hen it com es to intentio nal 13 child abuse and reckless child abu se . . . t h e J u ryhas to m ake clear w hich one they 14 fi nd, ” but

a rg ue d th at

the re w oul d be no p ro ble m w itha n e le m en ts i nstru ct ion 15 co nta ini ng b oththe or ie s a s lon g as the re w as a spe ci al int er ro ga tor y . T hus, the S ta te 16 pr opos ed

asin gle j ur

y ins tr uc tio n w hic h c ont ai ne d e le m en ts o f both in te nti ona l and 17 re ck le ss c hil d a

buse , a lon g wi th a s pe ci al int er ro ga tor y f orm on whic h th e j ur

y c oul d 18 ind ic at e w hic h ty

pe of abuse it f ound

.10

1 { 19} D ef

en dant as se rt ed tha t the el em en ts of int en tio na l and r ec kle ss s houl d be in 2 tw o s e p a r a t e i n s t r

u c t i o n s . D e f

e n d a n t a r g u e d t h a t th e j u ry w o u l d n e e d t o c le ar ly 3 indicate whether it found in tention al or re ckless child abus e, and therefore , “ [t] here 4 is a p roblem with having two theories in on e instruction.” De fendant also argued that 5 the j ury shou ld first consider whether D efendant w as guiltyof intention al child abuse, 6 an d if not , c onsi de r w he the r he w as gui lty of re ck le ss ch ild ab use , an d if not , f ind him 7 not gui lty

. T hus, D ef

en dant pro pose d tw o instr uc tio ns, one co nta ini ng the e le m en ts 8 of int en tio na l a

buse a nd anothe r fo r re ck le ss a buse

. D ef en dant a lso pr opos ed

aste p9 dow n- ty

pe ins tr uc tio n to gui de the j ur

y in co nsi de ri ng e ac h of

the c ri m es in tur

n. 10 { 20} In ruling on the j ury instructio n s , t h e d istrict court observed that if ten y ears 11 ago, this Court said the j ury instructio ns shou ld be changed, “ and the UJI C omm ittee 1 2 d i dn o tch an g e i t , it ’s b ec au s e th ey d i d n ’t th i n k i t n ee d ed t o b e c h an g ed . Th ey d o n ’t 13 j ust ign ore ca ses.” The district court thus surm ised that the Com m ittee and the Court 14 ha d di sc uss ed

w he the r the ins tr

uc tio ns n ee de d to be c hange d and d ec ide d a ga ins t i t. 15 T he S ta te not ed

that “ [t ]he UJI is wro ng. W e don’ t w an t t o f oll owthe U JI w he n it 16 co m es to re ck le ss dis re gard an d int en tio na l, ” an d th at “ w e’ re a ll in a gr ee m en t tha t this 17 shou ld h av e be enc hange d. ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt no ne the le ss c onc lud ed that “ the 18 [C ] om

m itt ee m ust ha ve tho ught

[ the pr obl em

w i thth e c o m

b i n e d e l e m e n t s in str

uc tio n]11

1 can [ be ] handl ed

by aspe ci al int er

ro ga tor y w he re y ou a sk the Jur

y to de sig na te on 2 what theory .” Ac cordingly , the district court re j ected both of De fendant’ s propos ed 3 instruct i o ns and accepted the State’ s com bined elem ents inst ruction and its special 4 i n t e rr o g a t o ry f

o rm. 5 { 21} T he dis put ed

e le m en ts i nstru ct ionsub m itt ed to the j ur y r ea d a s f oll ow s: 6 INSTRUCTION NO. 3 7 Fo r y ou t o f ind the de fe ndant g uil ty

of c hil d ab use r es ult ing in 8 de ath a s c harg ed in Co unt 1, the state m

ust prove to y our

sa tis fa ct ion 9 bey ond a r easonable doub t each of the following elem ents of the crim e: 10 1. T he de fe ndant c au se d B re an dr a Pe nato be pla ce d inasit ua tio n 11 w hic h e ndange re d th e lif e or he al th o f Br eandr a Pe na , or to rt ur ed or 12 cruelly

punis hed Breandra Pena; 13 2. T he de fe ndant ac te d int en tio na lly or w ith re ck le ss dis re gard a nd 1 4 w i t h o u tj u s t i f

i c a t i o n . T o f

i n dt h a tt h e d e f

e n d a n ta c t e dw i t h r e c k l es s 15 di sr eg ard , y ou m us t fi nd th at th e de fen da nt kn ew or sh ou ld ha ve kn own 16 the de fe ndant’ s c ondu ct c reat ed a subs tanti al a nd f or es ee ab le r isk , the 17 de fe ndant d isr eg ar de d th at r isk a nd the de fe ndant w as w hol ly ind if fe re nt 18 to the c onse que nc es of the co nd uc t and t o th e w el fare and s af ety of 19 Breandra Pena; 20 3. The def

endant’ s actions resulted in th e death of Br eandra P ena; 21 4. Br eandr a Pe naw as und er the a ge of

12; 22 5. T his ha

ppe ne d inN ewMe xic o, on o r ab out the 8[th ] da y

of 23 Mar ch , 20 11
. 2 4 I n s t r u c t i o n n u mb e r

f o u r d e f i n e d“i n t e n t i o n a l l y” a s s e t o u t i n U J I 1 4

- 6 1 0 N M RA : “A 2 5 pe r s o n a c t s i n t e n t i o n a l l y w h e n t h e p e r s o n p u r p o s e l y d o e s a n a c t . Whe the r the 26 de fe ndant ac te d int en tio na lly m ay be inf er re d fr om al l of the su rroundi ng12

1 ci rc um stanc es , suc h a s th e de fe ndant’ s a ct ion s or f ai lur e to a ct , c ondu ct a nd 2 st at em en ts .” 3 { 22} Instruction nu m

ber thirteen wa s a ty

pe of instruction “ com

m onlyref erre d to as 4 a ‘ step-down’ instruction ,” and directed the j ury on the use of the special 5 in te rro ga to ry

for m s. Se e Sta te v . G arc ia , 2005 -N MC A -0 42, ¶ 18, 137 N
. M. 315 , 110 6 P. 3d 531 (d isc uss ing the pr ope r use of U JI 14- 250 N MR A , the ste p- dow n in str

uc tio n 7 use d f or vary ing le ve ls o f hom ic ide of fe nse s)

. T he ins tr

uc tio n r ea d a s f

oll ow s: 8 If

y ou fin d th e defe ndant g uil ty of abuse of ac hil d r es ult ing in 9 death, then y ou m ust determ ine whether the crime wa s com m itted 10 intentio nally

or w ith reckless disregard. You m ust com plete the special 1 1 f

o rm t o i n d i c a t e yo u r

f i n d i n g . F o r

yo ut o ma k e af

i n d i n g th a tt h e c r i me 12 w as c om

m itt ed int en tio na lly , the state m ust pr ove to y our

sa tis fa ct ion 1 3 b e yo n d a r e a s o n ab l e d o ub tt h a tt h e c r i me w a s c o mm i t t e di n t e n t i o n a l l y. 14 If

y ou d ec ide the cr im e w as co m m itt ed int en tio na lly , than [s ic ] thi s is the 15 onl y

spe ci al f orm y ou co m pl et e. I f y ou h av e re as ona ble doubt tha t the 16 cr im e w as c om m itt ed int enti on al ly , the n y ou m ust de ci de w he the r the 17 cr im e w as c om

m itt ed w ith re ck le ss dis re gard

. Fo r y ou to m ak e a fi ndi ng 18 tha t the c ri m e w as c om m itt ed w ithr ec kle ss d isr eg ar d, the state m ust 19 prove to y our satisfaction bey ond a reasonable doub t that the crim e w as 20 comm itted with reckless disregard. If y ou decide the crim e w as 21 co m

m itt ed w ith re ck le ss dis re gard , the n thi s is the onl y spe ci al f orm y ou 22 co m

pl et e. I f y ou h av e re as ona ble doubt tha t the c ri m e w as not 23 co m

m itt ed w ithint en tio na lly or w ith re ck le ss dis re gard , the n y ou m ust 24 fi nd the de fe ndant n ot g uil ty of abuse of ac hil d r es ult ing in de ath. 25 T he spe ci al int er

ro ga tor y fo rm re ad : “ D o y ou unanim ousl y fi nd be y ond a re as ona ble 26 doub t that the crim e of abuse of a child r esulting in death was co mm itted13

1 in te nt io na ll y ?

__

__ __ _ (Yes or No ).” The jury fo rep ers on wrot e “ y es ” o n t he li ne . A 2 se co nd spe ci al int er

ro ga tor y fo rm as ke d the sa m e que sti on abo ut r ec kle ss d isr eg ar d. 3 T h e j u ry d i dn o tc o mp l e t e t h i s f o rm. 4 { 23} D ur ing it s de lib er at ion , the j ur y se nt a que sti on to the dis tr ic t co urt r eque sti ng 5 the de fi nit ionof re ck le ss d isr eg ar d c om para ble to the de fi nit ionof

int en t pr ovi de d in 6 instructio n num

ber four. The district court sug ge s ted, and bo th parties agreed, that 7 the re w as no f

urthe r de fi nit ionthe dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d pr ovi de

. A cc or din gly , the 8 dis tr ic t c ourt t old

the j ur y that the le ga l de fi nit ionof r ec kle ss d isr eg ar d w as a lr ea dy 9 co nta ine d inins tr

uc tio n nu m

be r thr ee , para gr ap h tw o. 10 { 24} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the j ur y ins tr uc tio ns m iss ta te d th e lawa nd c onf use d or 11 m isd ir ec te d th e j ur

y . W e ac know le dge the inc onsi ste nc ie s be tw ee n our ca se lawa nd 12 our j ur y ins tr uc tio ns n ote d by

the dis tr ic t c our

t and the a tto rn ey s inthe pr oc ee din gs 13 below. Nonetheless, w e find the facts of this case dis tingu ishable from previous cases 14 in which we have rever sed convictio ns of child abus e based o n fa ulty j ury 15 instructio ns. W e conclude that the use of our current instru ct i o n s , a s supp lem ented 16 by the dis tr ic t cou rt , w as suf fi ci en t t o pr ope rl y

ins tr uc t the j ur

y in thi s c as e an d 17 th eref or e aff irm Defen da nt ’s con vi ct io n. 18 2. Stand ard of re view14

1 { 25} “ T he standard

of r ev ie ww e ap ply

to j ur y ins tr uc tio ns d ep en ds o n w he the r the 2 iss ue ha s be enpr es er

ve d. I f the [ iss ue ] ha s be enpr es er ve d w e re vie wthe ins tr

uc tio n 3 for re versible error. ” Ca be zue la , 201 1- N MS C- 041, ¶ 21, 150 N
. M. 654 , 265 P
. 3d 7 05 4 (alteration in original) (internal quot ation m arks and citations om itted). I n this case, 5 D ef en dant p re se rv ed

the iss ue by

obj ec tin g to the ins tr

uc tio n w hic h c om

bin ed the 6 el em en ts of in te nt io na l and reck le ss ab us e, an d t o t he sp eci al in te rro ga to ry for m . See 7 id

. ( “ Inthi s c as e, de fe nse c ouns el pr es er ve d th e j ur

y ins tructi on c la im

w he n he 8 obj ec te d to the inc lus ionof the w or ds ‘ fa ilure to ac t’ in In str uc tio n N o. 3, a nd 9 the re fo re , w e re vie w fo r re ve rs ibl e er ro r. ”)

. A cc or din gly , thi s Court’ s r ev ie wof the 10 instructio n is for rever sible error. Se e id

. “ Re ve rs ibl e er ro r ar ise s if .

. . ar ea sona ble 11 j uror woul d h av e b een confused or m isdirected.” Id

. ¶ 22 ( om iss ionin or igi na l) 12 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ [Jur y ins tr uc tio ns] a re to be r ea d and 13 co nsi de red a s aw hol e an d w he n so c onsi de re d th ey a re pr ope r if

the y f ai rl y a nd 14 a c c ur ately

state the applicable law .” Id

. ¶ 21 ( al te ratio n inor igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n 15 m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d)

. 16 3. Th e ju ry in st ru ct ion s in t hi s c ase d o n ot c on st it ut e re ve rs ib le e rr or 17 { 26} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at Ca be

zue la stands for the propos ition that error o ccurs 18 w he re the e le m en ts o f both in te nti ona l and r ec kle ss c hil d a buse a re c ont ai ne d inone15

1 instructio n. D efendant m isreads the h o l d ing of Ca be zue la

. I n Ca be

zue la , the 2 de fe ndant w as ch ar ge d w ith int en tio na l c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d 3 under twelve y ears of age contrary to Sections 30-6-1(D)( 1) and 30-6-1(H). 4 Ca be zue la , 2011 -N MS C- 041, ¶¶ 16, 27. T he dis tr ic t co urt iss ue d an el em ents 5 ins tr uction w hic h r ea d, in re le vant p ar t: “ [T he de fe ndant] c au se d [ the ba by ] to be 6 placed in a situation which endangered the life o r h ea l t h o f [t he baby ] ; . . . [the] 7 defendant acted intentionally ; . . . [the defendant’ s] actions or failure to ac t resulted 8 in the [b ab y’ s death] .” Id

. ¶ 18. T he de fe ndant w as c onvi ct ed of int en tio na l c hil d 9 ab us e res ul ti ng in de at h. Id

. ¶ 15. 10 { 27} This Court held that the e l emen t s instruction wa s a m isstatem ent of the law 11 be ca use it inc lud ed “ fa ilure to ac t, ” w hic h w as al ign ed w ith a the or y of r ec kle ss c hil d 12 ab us e, an off

en se wit h wh ic h t he de fen da nt was n ot ch arg ed

. Id . ¶ ¶ 33, 36. The C ourt 13 concluded th at the jury wa s m isdirected by the instructio ns tendered b ecause the j ury 14 co uld ha ve c onvi ct ed

the de fe ndant f

or int en tio na l c hil d a

buse , the onl y

c ri m e w ith 15 w hic h sh e w as pr ope rl y c harg ed , ba se d ona n in str uc tio n in dic at ing a the or y of 16 reck le ss ch il d abu se . Id

. ¶ 36. 17 { 28} W e fi nd the e rr or in Ca be zue la dis tin gui sha

ble f ro m the pur porte d e rr or

in thi s 18 ca se . T he de fe ndant i n Ca be zue la w as not ch ar ge d w ithr ec kle ss c hil d a buse , y et the16

1 jury ins tru ct io ns in di cat eda th eo ry of r eck le ss ch il d abu se . Id

. ¶ ¶ 27, 34. Be ca

use the 2 j ur y ins tr uc tio ns u se d in Ca be

zue la suggest ed two distinct theorie s of child abuse, 3 intentio nal and reckless, and no definit ion of reckless abuse was pr o v ided, the j ury 4 co uld ha ve c onvi ct ed

the de fe ndant o f int en tio na l c hil d a buse b as ed

on a the or y of 5 reck le ss ne ss . Id . ¶

¶ 3 4, 36 . There fore, we held that the j ury instruction s constit uted 6 rev ers ib le erro r. Id

. ¶

36. 7 { 29} In the instant case, bec ause the special verdict form s clear l y indicated which 8 cr im e D ef

en dant w as c onvi ct ed

of , w e hol d th at the j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns d o no t c onst itu te 9 re ve rs ibl e er

ro r. I n Ca be

zue la , the j ury instructio ns m ade it im poss ible to d i s ce rn 10 whether the defendant was c onvi ct ed of intention al child abuse, for which she w as 11 ch arg ed , or fo r rec kl es s ch il d abu se , forwhi ch sh e was no t ch arg ed

. Id . ¶ 3 6 . Her e, 12 De fendant wa s charged w ith bo th intent ional and reckless child abus e. The j ury wa s 13 ins tr uc te d onthe de fi nit ion s of re ck le ss ac ts, in Ins tr uc tio n 3, an d inte nti ona l ac ts, in 1 4 I n s t r u c t i o n 4
. T h e s p e c i a l f

o rms p r o v i d e dt o t h e j u ry ma d e i tv e ry c l e a r w h i c h c r i me 15 D ef en dant w as co nvi ct ed of

: int en tio na l ch ild ab use re sul tin g in the de ath of ac hil d 16 under twelve y ears of age. 17 { 30} D ef

en dant i s c or

re ct in not ing that i n Ca be

zue la , “ we suggest [ed] t h at there 18 sh ou l d be s e par a t e i ns t r uc t i on s f or n e gl i ge nt

a nd i nt e nt i on a l c hi l d abu se .” Id

. ¶ 37.17

1 Read in the context of the Ca be zue la opi nio n, thi s sugg es tio n w as m ad e in o rd er to 2 av oid ve rd ic ts whic h do not cl earl yind ic at e w he the r the j ur y f ind s th e de fe ndant 3 gui lty of int en tio na l or

r ec kle ss c hil d a

bus e. Inf ac t, w e re ce ntl y

not ed in Co nsau l , 4 al be it in the c ont ex t of

c hil d a buse r es ult ing in gr eat bo dil y harm , not

de ath, that the 5 purpos e of re questin g separate instructions is so that the jury ’ s verdict is m ade clear. 6 See 201 4- N MS C- 030, ¶ 23 (“ Whe n tw o or m or e dif fe re nt o r inc onsi ste nt a ct s or 7 co ur se s o f co nd uc t ar e ad va nc edby the Sta te as a lt ern at iv e t h e o r i es as t o h ow a 8 ch ild ’ s in

j ur ie s oc curr ed , the n th e jury must m ak e aninf

orm ed a nd unanim ous 9 de ci sio n, gui de d by

se parate ins tr

uc tio ns, a s to the c ulp ab le a ct the de fe ndant 10 com m itted and for which he is being pun ished.”). 11 { 31} W e em

pha siz e tha t the ove rr idi ng c onc er n in thi s ca se , as it w as inCa be zue la , 12 is that the jury ’ s verdict m ust be clear a

bout the crim e of w hich t h e d ef en d ant was 13 co nvi ct ed

. A s in Ca be zue la , the dis tin ct ionin this c as e be tw ee n r ec kle ss and 14 int en tio na l co nduc t is cr iti ca l be ca use the c hil d a

buse r es ult ed

in the de ath of

ac hil d 15 under twelve

. We h ave re peatedly explained that the Legislature, in that lim ited 16 ci rc um stanc e, ha s c hose n to im pose dif fe re nt p uni shm en ts b as ed sol el y on the 17 de fen da nt ’s m en ta l s ta te . Se e Co nsau l , 2014-NMS C-030, ¶¶ 21-23 (e xplaini ng that 18 the puni shm ents for intention al and rec kless child abuse resu l t i n g i n the death of a18

1 ch ild unde r tw el ve ar e lif e in p ri son an d 18 y ears in pr iso n, r es pe ct ive ly ); Ca be zue la , 2 20 11 -NMSC -0 41 , ¶ 33 (sa m e), Sta te v . G arc ia , 2010 -N MSC- 023, ¶¶ 9-13, 148 N.M. 3 41 4, 2 37 P.3d 71 6 (s am e). 4 { 32} Clear j ury instructio ns with respect to the defendant’ s m ental state, therefore , 5 ar e ne ce ssary

w he n th e ab use r es ult s in the de ath of a ch ild unde r tw el ve to p ro pe rl y 6 determ ine the offense of w hich Def endant has been found gu ilty and to guarantee that 7 the ve rd ic t i s no t the r es ult of c onf usi on. W e he ld i n C

a b ez ue la th at se parate 8 in st ru ct io ns are o ne way to ach ie ve th atres ul t. See 2011 -N MS C- 041, ¶ 37 9 (s ugge sti ng tha t the U JI Co m m itt ee fo r Cr im ina l Ca se s dra ft se parate ins tr

uc tio ns f or 10 int en tio na l and r ec kle ss c hil d a buse ). W e hol d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s a

ppr oa chin thi s 11 ca se w as sim ilarl y ef

fe ct ive , w hic h co nsi ste d of usi ng o ur c ur re nt j ur y ins tr uc tio ns t o 12 cl earl y

de fi ne r ec kle ss and inte nti ona l cond uc t and pr ovi din g a st ep -d ow n in str uc tio n 13 w ithspe ci al int er

ro ga tor ie s to e nsu re a unani m ous ve rd ic t a bout the e le m en t 14 separating the two offenses. W e com m end the district court for cra fting a solut ion th at 15 ha rm on iz edou r cu rren t ju ry in st ru ct io ns wit h t he co nc ern s ra is edin ou r cas e la w. 16 { 33} W e also reiter ate that, while t h e d i s tinction betwee n reckless and intentio nal 17 co nduc t w as cr iti ca l in this c as e, that di sti nc tio n is of te n im m at er ia l w he n th e ch ild 18 abuse does no t result in the death of a child under twelve. As w e re cently explained17 W e re ce ntl y f ound e rr or in Co nsau l w he n the distri ct co urt f ai le d to pr ovi de 2 18 se parate ins tr

uc tio ns f or r ec kle ss and i nte nti ona l ch ild ab use r es ult ing in gr eat bo dil y 19 harm be ca use “ the S ta te ’ s th eo ri es of howthat harm

oc curr ed w er e dif fe re nt and 19 1 in Co nsau l , the L eg isl at ur e ha s c hose n to pu ni sh all oth er ty pe s of c hil d a buse the 2 sa m e wit h resp ect to th e de fen da nt ’s m en ta l s ta te . See 2014 -N MSC- 030, ¶ 22 (“ He re, 3 in c ontras t, th e puni shm en t f or c hil d a buse r es ult ing in gre at b odi lyharm , whether 4 done kno w ing ly , int en tio na lly , ne gli ge ntl y , or r ec kle ssl y , is the sa m e. ”) ; se e als o 5 N M S A 1 9 7 8 , § 3 0

- 6

- 1 ( E) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t , wh e t h e r c o mm i t t e dkn o w i n g l y, 6 int en tio na lly , or ne gl igent ly , c hil d a buse r es ult ing in gr eat bo dil y harm is a fi rs t7 de gr ee f

el ony ; tha t a

c onvi ct ionf

or af ir st o ff en se of ch ild ab use not re sul tin g inde ath 8 or great bodily

harm is a th ird degree felony ; and that all subs equent convi ctions are 9 se co nd d eg re e fe lon ie s) ; § 30- 6- 1( F) ( pr ovi din g th at ne gli ge nt ch ild abuse r es ult ing 10 in the death of a child is a first d egree felony ); § 30-6-1(G) (providing that intentio nal 11 ch ild abuse of ac hil d tw el ve to ei ght ee n y ears of a ge is a fir st de gr ee f

el ony ). A s a 12 result, in m ost cases when the abuse do es n o t re sult in the death of a child under 13 tw el ve , it

is not ne ce ssary

to spe ci fy

the de fend an t’ s m en ta l st at e or to pr ovi de 14 se parate j ur

y ins tr uc tio ns f or r ec kle ss o r int en tio na l c ondu ct ; e vid en ce that the 1 5 d e f e n d a n ta c t e d“ kn o w i n g l y, i n t e n t i o n a l l y or [ r e c k l e s s l y ] ” w i l l s u f f i c e t o s up por t a 16 co nvi ct ion

. S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (D ) (e m pha sis a dde d) ; cf

. Co nsau l , 20 14 -NMSC -0 30 , ¶ 214 inc onsi ste nt. ” 2014 -N MS C- 030, ¶ 26. Se parate ins tr uc tio ns w er e ne ce ssary

be ca use 15 the St at e ad v an ced two “ differe nt or incons istent acts or courses of conduct . .

. as 16 alternative theories as to how [the] child’ s injuries occurr ed.” Id

. ¶ 23. T he S ta te 17 or igi na lly

a rg ue d th at

the de fe ndant r ec kle ssl y

sw ad dle d th e ch ild

too ti ght ly

a nd l ai d 18 hi m face do wn i n h is cri b. Se e id

. ¶ 24. A fter the S tate’ s own experts testified that 19 suc h c ondu ct

c oul d no t have c au se d th e ch ild ’ s in j ur ie s, the St at e soug ht t o pr ove f or 20 the f ir st tim e tha t the de fe ndant i nte nti ona lly sm oth er ed

the c hil d by

pla ci ng h is h an d 21 ora pi ll ow o ve r th e ch il d’s m ou th

. Se e id. W e hel d th at giv ing asin gle ins tr

uc tio n 22 that allowed the j ury to pick betwee n the State’ s two inconsist ent factual theories w as 23 reversible er

ror beca use it m ade it im

poss i b l e t o d et erm ine which theory the j ury 24 rel ie d o n t o c on vi ctth e d efen da nt . Se e id. ¶ ¶ 25- 26. 20 1 23 (“Notw ithstand ing th is lack of differ ence in penalty , child abuse resulting in great 2 bodi ly harm w ill so m e t i me s al so requ ir e se parate j ur y ins tr uc tio ns . . . . ” (e m

pha sis 3 ad de d) ). A ccord M

ode l P en al C

ode § 2. 02( 5) ( “ Whe n r ec kle ssn es s su ff ic es to 4 es ta bli sh an e le m en t, suc h e le m en t a lso is es ta bli she d if a pe rs on a ct s purp ose ly

or 5 kn owi ng ly.”). 6 { 34} W e co nc lud e tha t the ste p- dow n in str uc tio n and s pe ci al f

orm s us ed

in thi s c as e 7 suf fi ci en tly cl ar if

ie d tha t the j ur

y fo und D ef

en dant gui lty of int en tio na l ch ild abuse 8 re s u l t i n g i n t h e d ea t h o f a ch i l d u n d ert we l v e yea rs o f a g e. Ac co rd i n g l y, Def en d an t ’s 9 co nvi ct ionis af

fi rm ed

. 10 4. R ec k

le ss c hi ld ab us e re su lt in g in t he d ea th of a c hi ld u nd er t w el ve is a 11 le sse r- in cl ud ed of fe ns e of in te nt ion al ch ild ab us e re su lt in g in t he d ea th of 12 a child un der tw elve 13 { 35} O ur

c onc lus ion tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y ins tr uc te d th e j ur

y in thi s c as e21

1 com pels us to clarif

y an o t h er as pect of our case law related to our child abuse jury 2 ins tr uc tio ns: whet he r re ck le ss c hil d a buse m ay

be ale sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse of 3 int en tio na l c hil d a

buse

. S ev er al opi nio ns o f thi s C ourt and o f the Co urt of Appe al s 4 ha ve tou ch ed

on this iss ue , tho ugh non e ha ve a ddr es se d it c onc lus ive ly

. W e do s o 5 no w to av oi d c on fu si on ab ou t o urap pr ov al of th e di st ric t co ur t’s us e of a st ep -d own 6 in st ru ct io n, a t y

pe of i ns tru ct io n ty

pi cal ly reserve d fo r le ss er-i nc lu de d o ffen se s. See 7 UJI 14-250 (providin g the j ury procedure for various degre es of hom icide); G arc ia , 8 2005 -N MC A -0 42, ¶

18 (di sc uss ing the pr ope r pr oc ed ur e unde r U JI 14- 250) ; U JI 14- 9 6002 NMR

A ( providi ng the jury

procedure for considering a “ necessarily included 10 of fen se ”). 11 { 36} O u r

C o u rto f Ap p e a l s f

i r s t a d d r e s s e d t h i s i s s u e , a l t h o u g h s o mew h a to b l i qu e l y, 12 in State v. Schoonmaker , w he n it had to dec ide the an al ytic al ly oppo sit e que sti on f or 13 doub le j e o p ar dy

p ur p o s e s : wh e th e r

i n t e n tio na l c hil d a

buse is a le sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse 14 of reck le ss ch il d abu se . See 2005 -N MC A -0 12, ¶¶ 14- 16, 136 N
. M. 749 , 105 P
. 3d 3 02 15 (“ Sc hoon m ak

er I ”), rev’d on other gro unds by State v. Schoonmaker , 2008-NMS C16 010, ¶¶ 1, 54, 143 N. M
. 373, 176 P.3d 110 5 (“ Schoon maker I I ”), ov errul ed

by 17 Co nsau l , 2014 -N MSC- 030, ¶ 38. The Court rightly observed that “ the s t at u t ory 18 el em en ts f

or int en tio na l and n eg lig en t c hil d a buse r ev ea l[ ] tha t ea ch of

fe nse c ont ai ns22

1 an elem ent that the other does no t: the m ens rea e lem ent.” Id . ¶ 25. It further r easoned 2 “ that these two s tatutes are m utuallyexclusive—on e cannot com m it an intentio nal act 3 and an unin tention al b ut subs tantially risky act at the sam e ti m e, even thoug h the act 4 is volu ntary as to both and the evidence m ay be sufficient to charge both offenses as 5 alternative theories. ” Id

. ¶ 2 7
. T h e C o u rto f

Ap p e a l s t h e r e f

o r e “[ h e l d ] t h a tt h e c r i me 6 of int en tio na l chi ld abu se is not the sa m e cr im e or le sse r inc lud ed

c ri m e of ne gli ge nt 7 ch il d abu se ,” an d a ffi rm edth e d efen da nt ’s con vi ct io ns . Id

. ¶ ¶ 27, 38. 8 { 37} W e gr an te d c er

tio rari an d re ve rs ed the Co urt of Ap pe al s on dif fe re nt g ro unds

. 9 See Schoonmaker II

, 2 0 0 8

- N M S C -0 10, ¶

1 ( re ve rs ing the de fe ndant’ s c onvi ct ion s and 10 r em an di ng fora ne w tri al du e to in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l). Ho wev er, we 11 ad dr es se d th e de fe ndant’ s do ubl e j eo pardy a rg um en t “ to avoi d r ep et iti on o f an y 12 sim ilar er

rors on retrial. ” Id . ¶

¶ 4 1 , 4 6 -4 9
. I n a f

o o t n o t e t o t h at d i s cu s s i o n , “ [w ]e 13 ag re e[ d] w iththe Co urt of Appe al s’ a na ly sis

. . . an d it s ho ldi ng tha t i nte nti ona l c hil d 14 ab us e is no t t he same crim e as , o r a le ss er in cl ud ed of fen se of, n eg li ge nt ch il d abu se .” 15 Id . ¶ 46 n.4. W e also exp l i ci t l y approved of the Court of Appeals’ rea sonin g that 16 in te nt io na l an d re ck le ss ch il d abu se are “ m ut ua ll y ex cl us iv e” cr im es . Id

. 17 { 38} Schoon maker I ’s ho ld in g t ha t t he se cri m es are m ut ua ll y ex cl us iv e, whi ch we 18 en dor se d in Schoon maker I I , became the basis for the proposi tion n ot onl y that23

1 int en tio nal

child abuse is no t a lesser- included crim e of re ck less c hil d a

buse , but a lso 2 tha t re ck

less child abuse is no t a lesser- included crim e of int en tio nal ch il d abu se . See 3 Sta te v . D av is , 200 9- N MC A -0 67, ¶ 9, 146 N
. M. 550 , 212 P
. 3d 4 38 ( “ [N ] eg lig en t 4 [n ow“ re ck le ss” ] c hil d a buse is not

ale sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse o f int en tio na l c hil d 5 ab use . ” (c iti ng Schoon maker I I , 2010-NMS C-010, ¶ 46 n.4)). W e continue to agree 6 that intenti onal child abu se is not a lesser-included offense of reck less child abus e, 7 but we now c larify

that the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that t h e t wo offe nses are 8 m utu al ly e xc lus ive w en t t oo f

ar . A s w e ex pla in b el ow , the statut or y e le m en ts o f 9 re ck le ss chi ld abu se re sul tin g in the de ath of a chil d unde r tw el ve ar e a subs et of the 10 statut o ry elem ents of intentio nal child abus e re sultin g in the death of a child und er 11 tw el ve . W e the re fo re hol d th at re ck le ss chi ld abu se re sul tin g in the de ath of ac hil d 12 unde r tw el ve is a le sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse of in te nti ona l c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the 13 de at h o f a ch il d u nd er t welv e. 14 { 39} A le sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse is “ a le ss se ri ous cr im e than the one ch ar ge d, but one 15 that an accused necessar ily com m itted in carry ing out the m ore serious crim e. ” Br y an 16 A. Garne r, G arne r’

s D ic ti on ar

y of Le gal U sage , 539 , 3r d e d. 201 1. I n State v. 17 M ea dors , 19 95

- N M S C

- 07 3, ¶ ¶ 6, 12 , 12 1 N
. M
. 38 , 90 8 P
. 2d 73 1, t hi s C ourt “ set[] 18 fo rth th e te st f

or de te rm ini ng w he the r one of fen se is a le sse r inc lud ed

of fe nse of24

1 another.” Sta te v. C

oll ins , 200 5- N MC A -0 44, ¶ 9, 137 N
. M. 353 , 110 P
. 3d 1 090, 2 ov errul ed

on oth er grou nds bySta te v . W ill ie , 200 9- N MS C- 037, ¶

18, 146 N
. M. 481 , 3 212 P. 3d 3 69. “ In M

ea dors we explained that NewMexico fol l o ws t wo di stinct 4 ap pr oa ch es f

or a na ly zi ng w he the r one c ri m e con sti tut es ale sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse of 5 another.” Sta te v . Ca m pos , 199 6- N MS C- 043, ¶ 20, 1 22 N
. M. 148 , 921 P
. 2d 1 266. 6 O n e i s t h e c o g n a t e ap p r o a c h , w h i c h “ r e qu i r e s t h a t o n l y t h o s e c r i m e s f orw hic h th e 7 elem ents are suff

iciently des crib ed in the charging do cum ent, and for which 8 supp orting evid ence is adduced at trial, are presented to the jury as lesser- included 9 offenses.” Id

. ¶

21; se e als o M

ea dors , 1995 -N MSC- 073,¶ 11 (clarif y ing th at w e re fer 10 to this “ test sim

ply as the cognate approach.”)

. Having alrea dy concluded th at, under 11 the facts of this case, the j ury wa s properly instructed on both theories of ch ild abuse, 12 w e ne ed

not a na ly ze the c ognate appr oa ch . We th eref or e tur n to the str ic t e le m en ts 13 te st, und er

w hic h w e co nc lud e tha t re ck le ss chi ld abu se is a l es se r- inc lud ed of fe nse 1 4 o f i n t en t i o n al ch i l dab u s e. U n d e r t h e s t ri ct el emen t s t es t , “ an o ff en s e [ i s ] a 15 le sse r- inc lud ed

of fe nse of a nothe r onl y

if the sta tut or

y el em en ts of the le sse r of fe nse 16 ar e a sub- se t of th e st at ut or ye le m en ts o f the gr eate r of fe nse suc h th at

it w oul d be 17 im poss i bl e e ve r

t o c om m i tt he g r e a t e r

o f f e ns e w i t ho ut

a l so c om

m i t t i ng t he l e ss er 18 offense. ” Ca m

pos , 19 96 -NMSC -0 43 , ¶ 20
.25

1 { 40} Se ct ion30- 6- 1(D) inclu de s th e cr im es of both in te nti ona l and r ec kle ss c hil d 2 ab use : 3 Abuse of a ch ild c onsi sts of

ape rs on know ing ly , int en tio na lly or 4 [r ec kle ssl y ] , a nd w ith out j ust if ia ble c au se , c au sin g or

pe rm itt ing a ch ild 5 to b e: 6 (1 ) pla ce d inasit ua tio n th at

m ay e nd an ge r the c hil d’ s li fe or 7 he al th; 8 (2 ) tortur ed , c ru el ly c onf ine d or c ru el ly pun ish ed ; or 9 (3) exposed to the inclem ency of the w eather. 10 A lth oughthi s st at

ute li sts the m en ta l st at es of “ know ing ly , int en tio na lly , or 11 [rec klessly ] ” together in Section 30-6-1(D), describing various crim es of child abuse, 12 the crim es of intention al and re ck l ess abuse resulting in the death of a child under 13 tw el ve a re dis tin gui she d by the ir r es pe ct ive se nte nc es . Re ck le ss c hil d a buse r es ult ing 14 in the de ath of

ac hil d un de r twel ve y ears of a ge is a fi rs t de gr ee f

el ony pun ish ab le 15 by ei ght ee n y ears im

pr iso nm en t. N MS A 1978 , § 30- 6- 1( F) (2 009) (“ A per so n who 16 co m m its [ re ck le ss] abuse of

ac hil d that re sul ts i n th e de ath of the c hil d is gui lty

of 17 a fi rs t de gr ee fe lon y . ”) ; NM SA 1978 , § 31-1 8- 15( A )( 3) (2 003) ( sta tin g th at the ba sic 18 s e n t e n c e fora fi rs t d eg ree f el on y is eig ht een y ears im

pr is on m en t). C on ve rs el y, 19 int en tio na l c hil d a

buse re sul tin g in the de ath of a ch ild unde r tw el ve is puni sha ble by 20 lif e im pr iso nm en t. S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 (H ) (“ A pe rs on wh o com m its int en tio na l a

buse of 21 a ch ild le ss than tw el ve y ears of ag e tha t re sul ts in the de ath of the ch ild is gui lty of26

1 a fi rs t de gr ee f

el ony r es ult ing in the de ath of a ch ild

. ”) ; N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 31 -1 8- 2 15( A )( 1) ( 2005 ) (s ta tin g th at the ba sic se nte nc e fo r a fi rs t de gr ee f el ony r es ult ing in 3 the death of a child is life im prisonm ent). All of the e lem ents of these two cr im es are 4 co nta ine d inone Sect ion : S ec tio n 30 -6 -1 -( D ). H ow ev er , the se nte nc es f or the se 5 crim es are contained in s eparate Sec tions , which dist ingu ish on e cr im e fr om the other 6 on th e so le ba si s o f th e le ve l o f m en s re a req ui r e d

. See §§ 3 0- 6- 1( F) ( re ck le ss) a nd 7 30- 6- 1( H ) (i nte nti ona l)

. T hus, w e ag re e w ith Sc hoon m ak er I that the onl y

dis tin ct ion 8 be tw ee n th e tw o c ri m es is the le ve l of m en s r ea

r equir ed: ei ther

int en tio na l or 9 reck le ss . See 200 5- N MC A -0 12, ¶ 25. 10 { 41} H ow ev er , w e dis ag re e tha t i nte nti ona l and reck le ss c ondu ct a re “ m utu al ly 11 ex cl usi ve . ” O ne c anc om m it ch ild ab use re ck le ssl y w ith out ac tin g int en tio na lly , but 1 2 o n e c an n o ti n t en t i o n al l y co m m i tch i l dab u s e w i t h o u t“ co n s ci o u s l y d i s re g ar d [i n g ] a 13 su bs ta nt ia l an d u nju st ifi ab le ris k,” th e de fin it io n of re ck le ss ne ss . Se e Co nsau l , 201 4- 14 N MS C-03 0, ¶ 37 ( ci tin g M ode l P en al C

ode S ec tio n 2. 02( 2) (c ) fo r de fi nit ionof 15 “ reck le ss ly ”) ; cf

. Sta te v . G arc ia , 1 9 9 2

- N M S C

- 0 4 8 , ¶ 2 1 , 1 1 4 N
. M
. 2 6 9 , 8 3 7 P
. 2d 16 862 (“ Even though an in tention al kil ling in cludes the elem ent of knowledge of a 17 strong p robabilityof death or great bodi ly harm , the converse is not necessarily true; 18 a killin g with knowledge of the requisite probabilit y does not necessarily include an27

1 int en tio na l ki lli ng. ”)

. W e the re fo re dis av ow the r ea soni ng i n Sc hoon m ak er I a nd a ll 2 oth er pr ec ed en t ag re ei ng tha t int en tio na l an d re ck le ss ch ild ab use ar e m utual ly 3 ex cl usi ve c ri m es . W e cl ar if y that r ec kle ss chi ld abu se re sul tin g in the de ath of ac hil d 4 unde r tw el ve is a le sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse of int en tio na l c hil d abus e re sul tin g inthe 5 death of a child under twelve. 6 { 42} W e em

pha siz e that w he n di str ic t c ourts are r equir ed to d ete rm ine w he the r to 7 gr an t a req ue st edin st ru ct io n o n a les se r-i nc lu de d o ffen se , M ea dors r equir es a na ly sis 8 of both th e str ic t ele m en ts te st and the c ognate appr oa ch , w hic h “ fo cu se s up on b oth 9 the c harg ing ins tr

um en t and the e vid en ce a dduc ed a t tri al

. ” 1995 -N MS C- 073, ¶¶ 6, 10 11, 12. Whe n ade fe ndant i s c harg ed wit h in te nti ona l c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the 11 de ath of

ac hil d un de r tw el ve , the in st ru ct ionon the le sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse of 1 2 r e c k l e s s c h i l dab u s e s h o u l d o n l y b e g i v e n i f t h e e v i d e n c e c o u l d s up p o rt s u c h at h e o ry. 13 Se e Sta te v . U

lib arr i , 196 0-NMS C-102, ¶ 8, 67 N. M. 336, 355 P. 2d 27 5 (stating th at 14 “ the trial court m

ust ins truct the j ury

in every degree of the crim e char ged when there 1 5 is e vid e n c e i n t h e c a s e t e n d i n g t o s u s t a i n s u c h d e g r e e . ” )

. W e f u rt h e r c o n c l u d e tha t, 16 w he n it

is ap pr opri at e to ins tr

uc t the j ur

y on the le sse r- inc lud ed

c ri m e, it is al so 17 ap pr opri at e to pr ovi de aste p- dow n in str uc tio n pr ovi din g th e pr oc es s by w hic h th e 18 j ur y shou ld co nsi de r ea ch ch ar ge . Be ca use w e hol d th at

both of fe nse s w er e co rr ec tly28

1 instructed in t h i s case, we conclude that the use of a step-down instruction wa s 2 appropriate. 3 { 43} O ur

hol din g m ay

ha ve im portant i m

pli catio ns i n th e ch ar ging of futur e ch ild 4 ab use of

fe nse s. “ Whe n on e of

fe nse is a le sse r inc lud ed of fe nse of a cr im e na m ed

in 5 a ch ar gin g do cu m en t, the de fe ndant i s put on not ic e tha t he [o r she ] m ust de fe nd n ot 6 onlyagainst the greater o ffense as charged but also against any lesser included 7 offense. ” Co lli ns , 200 5- N MC A -0 44, ¶ 8; se e als o D av is , 200 9-NMC A- 067, ¶ 8 (“ It 8 is i m pr ope r to ins tr

uc t the j ur

y a s to ac ri m e not

f orm al ly c harg ed if that c ri m e is n ot 9 a lesser[ -] included o ffense of the crim e form ally charged. ” (a lteration in origin al)). 10 “ T he de fe ndant’ s c onst itu tio na l r igh t t o no tic e of the c ri m e ag ai nst

w hic h he m

ust 11 de fe nd i s a c onsi de ratio n th at a ri se s w he n . . . the S ta te r eque sts aj ur y ins tr uc tio n on 12 a lesser- included o ffense o v er the defendant’s obj ection.” M ea dors , 1995-NMS C13 073, ¶

5. T he re fo re , w he n ade fe ndant i s c harg ed wit h in te ntiona l c hil d a buse 1 4 re sul tin g i n t h e d e a t h o f ac h i l du n d e r

t w e l v e , h e o r

s h e w i l l b e o n n o t i c e t o d e fe nd 15 ag ai nst

both in te nti ona l and r ec kle ss c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d 16 un de r twe lv e whe n th e ab us e res ul ts fro m th e sa m e co nd uc t o r co ur se of c on du ct . Cf

. 17 Co nsau l , 201 4- N MS C- 030, ¶ 24 ( re qui ri ng s ep ar at e ins tr uc tio ns whe n t he S ta te 18 advanc ed

tw o “ dif fe re nt and i nc onsi ste nt the or ie s” a s to the c ondu ct or c our se of29

1 conduct am ount ing to child abuse). 2 B. Ad m issio n of Expe rt T estim ony 3 { 44} D ef

en dant a lle ge s th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt er

re d by a llo w ing the e xpe rt

f or en sic 4 patholo gist to testify

that Baby

Bre andra died of a “ constellation of injurie s” and that 5 “ it was impo ssibl e to tell which one m ight h ave been the lethal inj ury or in which 6 or de r the y

m ay ha ve be en inf

lic te d. ” H e as se rt s th at

the te sti m ony

la ck ed spe ci fi ci ty 7 an d a llo w ed

the j ur y to spe cu la te on the c au se of de ath. D ef

en dant’ s arg um en t i s no t 8 de ve lop ed

be y ond thi s bald as se rt ion , an d he m ak es onl y va gue r ef er en ce to Ru le s 11

- 9 702 to -70 4 NM RA to s uppo rt it

. T hose r

ule s e sta bli sh the c ri te ri a fo r ex pe rt opi nio n 1 0 te sti m o n y , b u tD e f

e n d a n td o e s n o te x p l a i n h o wt h e y w e r e v i o l a t e do r

o t h e rw i se 11 supp ort hi s c ont en tio n. N one the le ss, w e ad dr es s th is arg um en t. 12 1. P re se rv at ion 13 { 45} “ Inor de r to pr es er ve a n is sue f

or appe al , ade fe ndant m

ust m ak e a tim el y 14 obj ec tio n th at

spe ci fi ca lly

appr ise s th e tr ia l c ourt of t he na tur e of the c la im ed

e rr or 15 and invo kes an intelligen t ruling th ereon. ” Sta te v . W alt er s , 200 7- N MS C- 050, ¶

18, 16 142 N
. M. 644 , 168 P
. 3d 1068 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ); Ru le 17 12- 216( A ) N MR

A (“ T o pr es er

ve a que sti on fo r re vie w it m ust appe ar that a r uli ng o r 1 8 d e c i s i o n b y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt w a s f a i r l y i n v o k e d

. . . . ” )

. A s t h e S t a t e p o int s ou t,30

1 D ef en dant fa ile d to o bj ec t t o th is t es tim ony a nd the re fo re f

ai le d to pr es er

ve thi s c la im 2 of e rr or f or appe al

. 3 2. Stand ard of re view 4 { 46} Beca

use Def endant did not preserve this argum ent, we reviewit for plain err or. 5 “ U nde r [R

ule 11- 103( D )- (E ) N MR

A ] , thi s Court m ay re vie w ev ide nti ar y que sti ons 6 al th ou gh no t pr es erv edif t he ad m is si on of t he ev id en ce co ns ti tu te s p la in erro r.” Sta te 7 v. Co ntr eras , 1995 -N MS C- 056, ¶ 23, 120 N
. M. 486, 903 P. 2d 228. “ T he pla in- er ro r 8 ru le , how ev er , appl ie s on ly if the a lle ge d e rr or

a ff ec te d th e subs tanti al r igh ts o f the 9 accused. ” Id

. T o f

ind pla in er ro r, the Co urt “ m

ust be co nvi nc ed tha t adm iss ionof the 10 te sti m ony

c onst itu te d an inj ust ic e tha t cr eate d gr av e doub ts c onc er nin g th e va lid ity 11 o f th e verdict. ” Id

. (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). Further, “ [i ]n 12 determ ining whether

there has been plain

. . . error , w e m ust exam ine the alleged 13 error s in the context o f the testim ony as a w hole.” State v

. Dy la n J. , 14 2009 -N MCA -027, ¶ 15, 1 45 N. M. 719 , 204 P. 3d 44 (om issio n in origin al) (inter nal 15 quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 16 3. Th e ad m iss ion of D r. Kr in sk

y’ s t es ti m on y was n ot p lai n er ro r 17 { 47} In Sta te v . L uc er o , w e r e v i e w e dt h e a d m i s s i o n o f e x p e rtt e s t i m o n y

f o r p l ai n 18 er ro r. 199 3- N MS C- 064, ¶

13, 116 N
. M. 450 , 863 P
. 2d 1071
. T he e xpe rt in tha t c as e31

1 w as apsy ch olo gis t w ho i nte rv ie w ed a chi ld w ho com pla ine d abou t sexu al abuse by 2 he r un cl e. Id

. ¶¶ 2-3. T he State a sked that the expert interview the child prior to trial 3 to de te rm in e th e ch il d’s co m pe te nc y . Id

. ¶

3. T he e xpe rt

tes tifi ed that the c hil d 4 s u f f e r e df r o m p o s tt r au ma t i c s t r e s s s yn d r o me a n d t h a t ma n y o f t h e c h i l d ’s s ymp t o ms 5 were con si st en t with th os e fo un d in ch il dr en who ha ve be en sex ua ll y ab us ed

. Id

. ¶

4. 6 The se xu al ab us e, th e ex pe rt tes ti fie d, caus ed th e po st traum at ic st res s s ynd ro m e. Id

. 7 A s part of thi s te sti m on y , t he ex pe rt r ec ount ed

se ve ra l st at em en ts the c hil d m ad e 8 di rect ly to h er, and co m m en te d o n t he de m ean oran d c red ib il it y of t he ch il d. Id

. ¶

¶ 6- 9 7
. 10 { 48} W e he ld tha t the a dm iss ion of thi s te sti m ony w as not harm le ss er ro r “ [b ] ec au se 11 [the expert] repea ted so m any of t he com plainant’s statem ents regarding the alleged 12 se xua l a

buse by the de fe ndant and b ec au se she co m m en te d di re ct ly

a nd i ndi re ct ly 13 upon the com

plainant’s truthfulness.” Id . ¶2 2 . We r e a s o n ed t h at t h e e x p er t ’s 1 4 “ t es t i m o n y i n [t h at ] ca s e r e a l l y a m o u n t ed t o a r ep et i t i o n o f t h e c o m p l ai n an t ’s 15 sta te m en ts r eg ar din g se xua l a buse m ad e to h er

dur ing he r ev al ua tio n” a nd “ [i ] n so 16 man y w o rd s, [t he ex pe rt] tes ti fie d t ha t t he co m pl ai na nt ha d i n fa ctbe en m ol es te d.” 17 Id

. ¶ 21. I n a ddi tio n, “ [the e xpe rt ] w en t a ste p f urthe r an d st at ed

that i t w as the 18 de fe ndant who a

buse d th e co m

pla inant, ” an d “ [s ] he a lso c om m ente d th at

the32

1 com plainant’s statem ents wer e truthful.” Id

. We co n cl u d ed t h at b ec au s e t h e c h i l d ’s 2 cr ed ibi lity

w as ac en tr al iss ue in the c as e, a nd b ec au se she a nd her uncle w er e the 3 onl y w itn es se s to the a lle ge d a bus e, it was likel y

that the j ur

y w as sw ay ed

by the 4 ex pe rt’s t es ti m on y . Id

. ¶ 22. A cc or din gly , w e ex pr es se d “ gr av e doub ts c onc er nin g th e 5 validityof the verdict and the fair ness of the trial.” Id

. 6 { 49} Inthe c as e at

bar, the r ec or d re fl ec ts tha t the pie ce of D r. K ri nsky ’ s te sti m ony 7 tha t De fe ndant sel ec tiv el y re lie s on to suppo rt his ar gum en t com es fr om ac oll oquy 8 in whic h D r. K

ri nsky ide nti fi ed

“ m ult ipl e blunt f

or ce inj ur ie s” a s th e ca

use of Ba by 9 Br eandr a’ s de ath. D r. K ri nsky int im at ed tha t a br ai n in j ur y c oul d have in fa ct

be enthe 10 fata l bl ow , but

a ff irm at ive ly

a sse rt s th at

the c au se of de ath w as the m ult ipl e blunt 11 fo rc e inj urie s. Whil e D r. K ri nsky ide nti fi ed

se ve ra l i nj ur ie s, she w as spe ci fi c in 12 sta tin g th at

the inj ur ie s to ge the r w er e the c au se of de ath. W e fi nd it diff

ic ult to 13 im ag ine howthi s te sti m ony c oul d le ad

to j ur y spe cu la tio n a

bout the ca use of de ath. 14 Furthe r, D r. K

ri nsky m ad e no a sse rt ion s th at D ef en dant c au se d th es e inj ur ie s, unl ike 15 in Lu ce ro , w he re the e xpe rt state d th e child’ s un cl e m ole ste d he r. F ina lly , unl ike 16 Lu ce ro , where the e xpert likely sealed the defendant’ s fate with her testim ony alone, 17 in this c as e the re is am ple ev ide nc e outs ide of D r. K ri nsky ’ s te sti m ony

to supp ort the 1 8 ju ry’s fi n d i n g o f g u i l t . Ac co rd i n g l y, w e h o l dt h at t h e a d m i s s i o n o f D r. Kr i n s ky’ s33

1 testim ony

wa s not pl ain error

. 2 C. Suf

ficienc y of the Evidenc e 3 { 50} D ef

en dant c la im s th at the St at e fa ile d to pr es en t su ff ic ie nt e vid en ce to pr ove 4 be y ond a re as ona

ble doubt tha t B aby

Br eandr a’ s in

j ur ie s w er e int en tio na l or 5 re ck le ssl y

inf lic te d, r athe r than a cc ide nta l. D ef en dant arg ue s th at

a lth ough the 6 ev ide nc e pr es en te d e sta bli she d th at

Ba by Br eandr a suf

fe re d a con ste llatio n of 7 inj ur ie s, the re w as no e vid en ce pr es en te d to sho wthat D ef en dant c au se d th ose 8 inj ur ie s, e ith er in tenti ona lly or r ec kle ssl y . D ef

en dant c ite s no c as es r eg ar din g 9 sufficiency

of ev i d ence in suppo rt of this argum ent, and ins tead cites State v. 10 F rank lin , 1 9 6 7

- N M S C

- 1 5 1 , 7 8 N
. M
. 1 2 7 , 4 2 8 P
. 2 d 9 8 2 a nd State v. B oyer , 198 5- 11 N MC A -0 29, 103 N
. M. 655 , 712 P.2d 1

. Be y ond thi s, D ef en dant’ s arg um en t i s 12 unde ve lop ed

. 13 { 51} The S tate ar gues that the evid ence prese nted was sufficie nt to su p p ort 14 De fendant’ s convictio n. T he State a sserts that the evidence that Baby Bre andra w as 15 unin j ured before being left alon e w ith Defe ndant, that the m edical experts determ ined 16 tha t the ty

pe s of inj ur ie s B ab y

Br eandr a suf

fe re d c oul d no t have be ena cc ide nta l, a nd 1 7 t h at De fe n d an tad mi t t ed t o h i t t i n g t h e b ab y, was s u ff i ci en tt o s up p o rt De fe n d an t ’s 18 co nvi ct ion

.34

1 1. Stand ard of re view 2 { 52} Inr ev ie w ing the suf fi ci en cy of the ev ide nc e, “ [t ] he r ev ie w ing c ourt vi ew [s ] the 3 ev ide nc e in the lig ht m ost favor ab le to the gui lty ve rd ic t, ind ulg ing al l re as ona

ble 4 in fere nc es an d re so lv in g a ll co nf li ct s i n t he ev id en ce i n fa vo r of th e v erd ic t.” Sta te 5 v. G ue rra , 201 2- NMSC -0 27, ¶ 10, 284 P
. 3d 1 076 (s ec ond al te ratio n inor igi na l) 6 (i nte rn al quot at ion m ar ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ T he te st fo r suf fi ci encyof the 7 evidence is whether subs tantial evidence of either a direct or circum stan t i al n ature 8 exists to suppo rt a verdict of g uilty bey ond a reasonable doub t with respect to ever y 9 elem ent essential to a

conviction .” Id . (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 10 “ T he que sti on b ef

or e [the ] r ev ie w ing [ c] ourt i s no t w he the r [the c ou rt] wou ld ha ve 11 ha d ar ea sona

ble doubt [ ab out gui lt] but w he the r it w oul d have be enim pe rm iss ibl y 12 unreasonable for a j ury to have concluded o therwise. ” Id

. ( se co nd and f ourth 13 al te ratio ns i n or igi na l) ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ark s an d c itatio n om itt ed ). “ Inour 14 de te rm ina tio n of the suf fi ci en cy of the e vid en ce , w e ar e re qui re d to e nsur e tha t a 1 5 r a t i o n a l ju ry co uld

have found bey ond a reasonable doub t the essential facts r equired 16 for a c onvi ction.” Sta te v. D uran , 200 6- N MS C- 035, ¶ 5, 140 N
. M. 94, 140 P
. 3d 5 15 1 7 ( i n t e rn a l qu o t a t i o n m a rk s a n dc i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )

. “ C o n t r a ry e v i d e n c e s upportin g 18 acquittal does no t provide a basis for reversa l b ec au s e the j ury is free to rej ect35

1 De fendant’ s version of the facts.” Id

. (internal quot ation m arks and citation om itted). 2 W e do “ not

e va lu at e th e ev ide nc e to d et er m ine w he the r som e hy

pothe sis c oul d be 3 de sig ne d w hic h is c onsi ste nt w ith a fi ndi ng of inno ce nc e, ” and w e do “ not w ei gh the 4 ev ide nc e [o r] subs tit

ute [o ur ] j udgm en t f

or that of the f ac t f ind er so l ong as the re is 5 sufficient evidence to supp ort the verdict.” Sta te v . Sut phi n , 198 8- N MS C- 031, ¶ 21, 6 107 N
. M. 126 , 753 P
. 2d 1 314. 7 { 53} “ [T ] he te st t o de te rm ine the suf fi ci en cy of e vid en ce in N ewMexi co . . . i s 8 w he the r subs tanti al e vid en ce of e ith er adir ec t or

c ir cu m stanti al na tur e ex ist s to 9 supp ort a

ve rd ic t of

gui lt be y ond a reas ona

ble doubt w ithr es pe ct

to ev er y e le m en t 10 essential to a co n v i ct i o n.” Id . “ Su b s t an t i al ev i d en ce i s re l ev an tev i d en ce [t h at ] a 11 reasonable m ind m ight accept as adequate to suppo rt a c onclusi on.” In re Ga br ie l M. , 12 2002 -N MCA -047, ¶ 22, 132 N .M. 124, 145 P. 3d 64 (alteration in original) (internal 13 quot at ionm ar

ks and c itation om itt ed ). “ Jus t be ca use the e vid en ce sup portin g th e 14 convic t i onw a s c i r c um st a nt i a l d oe s no tm e a n i tw a s no ts ub st a nt i a l e vi de nc e. ” Id

. 15 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). “ In te nt i s su bj ec tiv e an d is alm ost 16 al wa ys i nferr ed from other fac ts in the case, a s it is rarely established bydirect 17 evidence.” Sta te v . Sos a , 2000-NMS C-036, ¶ 9, 129 N. M. 767, 14 P. 3d 32 (internal 18 quot ation m arks and citation om itted).36

1 2. Th e ev id en ce pr es en te d w as s uf fi ci en t to su pp or t D ef

en da nt ’s c on vic ti on 2 fo r in te nt ion al c hi ld ab us e 3 { 54} Inor de r to p re se nt s uf fi ci en t e vid en ce f

or the jury to co nvi ct

D ef en dant o f 4 in te nt io na l ch il d abu se res ul ti ng in th e d eat h o f a ch il d u nd er t welv e, 5 the S ta te w as r equir ed to pr ove be y ond a re as ona ble dou bt th at ( 1) 6 De fendant caused Baby [Br eandra] to be placed in a situation which 7 endangered her life or health, or torture d or cruelly confined or punis hed 8 Ba b y [B re an d ra ]; (2 ) De fe n d an t ac t ed i n t en t i o n al l y; . . . (3 ) D ef en d an t ’s 9 ac t i o n s re s u l t ed i n t h e d ea t h o f o r g re atb o d i l y h ar m t o Bab y [B re an d ra ]; 10 (4) Ba

by Bre andra was under the age of tw elve; and (5) this happened in Ne w 11 Mex ic o. W

alt er s , 2007 -N MS C- 050, ¶ 28; se e als o UJI 14-602 NMRA; § 30-6-1(H ). 12 { 55} T he S ta te pr ove d th e f i r s t an d se co nd e le m en ts w ithD ef en dant’ s own st at em en t 1 3 tha t “ I s l ap p e d h e r . I g o t h e r b y h e r e a r s a n d s h e d i d n ’ t w a n t t o k e e p quie t. ” T his 14 sta te m en t de m onstrate s th at D ef en dant e ndange re d th e baby ’ s he al th, an d tha t he 15 ac te d in te nti ona lly

. F urthe r, w iththe f or en sic pa th ol ogist’ s te sti m ony that the 16 co nst el la tio n of

inj ur ie s onBa

by Br eandr a’ s bo dy

w er e int en tio na l and th at the 17 m an ne r of de ath wa s hom ic ide , the St at e show ed tha t the inj ur ie s sh e suf fe re d c oul d 18 no t h av e b een cau se d b y acci de nt . Co ntr a C

onsa ul , 2014 -N MS C- 014, ¶ 56 ( fi ndi ng 19 insufficient evidence of child abuse resulti n g in great bodilyharm by intentio nal 20 suf fo catio n w he n “ ex pe rt

m ed ic al te sti m ony

pr ovi de d the only

e vid en ce that [ the 21 child] m ay

have been sm othered—that a crim e had occurred—and that [the child] had37

1 not be en inj ur ed by oth er , nonc ri m ina l cause s. ”)

. T he St at e pr ove d the thi rd e le m en t, 2 tha t D ef

en dant’ s a ct ion s r es ult ed in the ba by ’ s de ath, w ithte sti m ony f ro m 3 D efend an t’s fr ie nd D er ek V igi l tha t he ha d vi sit ed D ef en dant at ho m e on M ar ch8, 4 2011 , a nd w he n he le ft a ro und 11: 30 a
. m . or

noo n, he did not se e an y

sig ns tha t B ab y 5 Breandra wa s in dis tress. T his sh ows that the baby wa s in goo d health before she w as 6 le ft a lon e w ithD ef

en dant. I n c onj un ct ion , the se f ac ts s howthat D ef

en dant w as the 7 onlyperson with the baby when she w as intention ally injure d, proving that 8 D ef en dant’ s ac ts cause d the baby ’ s dea th. T he St at e pr ove d e le m en t f our by sho w ing 9 tha t B ab y

Br eandr a’ s bi rthday

w as S ep te m

be r 24, 200 9, a nd s he di ed on M ar ch8, 10 2011
. F ina lly , the S ta te prove d th e fi fth e le m en t by sho w ing that the se e ve nts 11 oc curr ed

in E spañol a, N ewMe xic o. 12 { 56} View ing the evidence i n the light m ost favorable to th e verdict, the evidence 13 the State presented in support of De fendant’ s convictio n is e noug h t h at a rational 1 4 j ur or c o u l d h a v e f

o u n d b e y o n d a r e a s o n ab l e d o ub t t h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t s r e qu i re d f

or 15 conviction

. W e t he r e f or e h ol d t hats uf

f i c i e nt e vi de nc e w a s pr e se nt e d t o su pp ort 16 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ion

. 17 D. Ineff

ective A ssistance of C ounsel 18 { 57} D e f

e n d a n tc l a i me dt h a th e w a s d e n i e d e f f e c t i v e a s s i s t a n c e o f

c o u n s e l

. C l a i ms38

1 of in effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l ar e rev ie wedde no vo . Sta te v. B oe rgadine , 200 5- 2 N M C A

- 0 2 8 , ¶

3 3 , 1 3 7 N
. M
. 9 2 , 1 0 7 P
. 3 d5 3 2
. D e f e n d a n tab a n d o n e dt h i s c l a i m, 3 the re fo re w e do not ad dr es s it. A lth ough w e do n ot n owc om m en t onthe m er its of

thi s 4 cl ai m , D ef

en dant re m ai ns fr ee to ra ise thi s is sue in a co llate ra l pr oc ee din g. Se e Sta te 5 v. Baca , 1997-NMS C-059, ¶ 25, 124 N. M. 333, 950 P. 2d 77 6 (“ A r ecord on appeal 6 tha t pr ovi de s aba sis f

or r em an din g to the tr ia l c ourt f or a n e vid en tiary

he ar ing on 7 ine ff ec tiv e as sis tanc e of

c ouns el is rare . O rd inari ly , suc h cla im s ar e heard on p et iti on 8 fo r w ri t of

ha be as c or pus . . . . ”) ; Stat e v . T

e l les , 1999-NMC A- 013, ¶ 25, 126 N. M. 9 593, 973 P.2d 845 (“ De fendant’ s proper avenue of re lief [fr om ineffec tive assistance 10 of counsel] is a post-convictio n proceeding that can develop a proper r ecord”). 11 E. Sent encin g 12 { 58} D ef

en dant arg ue s th at

the d is tri ct

c our t’ s f ai lur e to c onsi de r m iti ga tin g 13 ci rc um stanc es dur ing se nte nc ing c onst itu te s an ab use of dis cr et ion , a nd a sks thi s 14 Court to rem and the case for a new sentencing hearing. T he State c oncedes that 15 D ef en dant w as e nti t l e d

t o p r e s e n t m iti ga tin g c ir cu m stanc es pr ior to se nte nc ing

. Whil e 16 w e ar e not

bound b y the S ta te ’ s co nc es sio ns on ap pe al , w e ag re e w ith the part ie s and 17 rem an d to th e d is tri ctco ur t fo r res en te nc in g, as we di sc us s b el ow. See S tate v. Foster , 18 1999 -N MSC- 007, ¶ 25, 126 N. M. 646, 974 P. 2d 140 (stating that appellate courts are39

1 no t b ou nd by the Sta te ’s con ces si on s) , abro gated on o t h er g roun ds by Kersey v. 2 Hatch , 20 10 -NMSC -0 20 , ¶ 17 , 14 8 N.M. 3 81 , 23 7 P .3d 68 3. 3 1. Pr ocedur al back ground 4 { 59} D ef

en dant ar gue s that dur ing se nte nc ing , the dis tr ic t cour t m isunde rs too d it s 5 au tho ri ty

to al te r the ba sic se nte nc e of li fe im pr iso nm en t b as ed on m iti ga tin g 6 ci rc um stanc es pur suant to S ec tio n 31 -1 8- 15. 1( A )( 1) , a nd tha t su chm isunde rs tandi ng 7 w as an ab use of dis cr et ion

. T he S ta te c onc ed es thi s po int , a gr ee ing w ithD ef en dant 8 tha t the dis tr ic t co urt m isunde rs too d the law . T he S ta te a cknow le dge s th at D ef en dant 9 w as e nti tle d to pr es en t c la im s of m iti ga tin g c ir cu m stanc es pr ior to se nte nc ing , but 10 does not agree that the district court should have altered D efendant’ s sentence based 11 on the m iti ga tin g c ir cu m stanc es pr es en te d. 12 { 60} Afte r dism iss ing the j ur y , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr oc ee de d im m ed ia te ly to 13 se nte nc ing

. Upon be ing a sk ed f or it s r ec om

m en da tio n, the S ta te a sse rt ed that the 1 4 d i s t r i c tc o u rth a d n o c h o i c e b u t t o i mp o s e a l i f e s e n t e n c e . T h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e ds o me 15 of Ba by Br eandr a’ s fam ily m em

be rs , inc lud ing he r m oth er , f athe r, gr an dm oth er , a nd 16 uncle, w ho all requested the m axim um sentence of life in prison. D efendant presented 17 his m other and god m other, w ho spo ke to Def endant’ s good chara cter. 18 { 61} D ef

en se c ouns el the n r eque ste d th at the dis tr ic t c ourt co nside r m iti ga tin g40

1 circum stances under NMS A 19 7 8 , S ec t i o n 3 1 -1 8 -1 5 .1 (A ) (200 9) (enhancem ent based 2 o n a g g r a v a t i n g f

a c t o r s r e c o g n i z e d a s u n c o n s t i tu t i o n a l b y State v. F rawley , 3 2007 -N MSC- 057, ¶ 29, 143 N .M. 7, 172 P. 3d 144). [4 T r. 196:5 -6] De fendant argued 4 that the m i t i gating circum stances included th e fa ct that he called the am bulance, 5 cooperated with th e p olice, and had spent a lot o f tim e taking care of Baby Bre andra 6 and was c lose with her. De fendant asked the district c ourt to m itigate up to one-third 7 of the basic sentence. 8 { 62} T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d th at “ the lawha s r es er

ve d th e sti ff

es t pe na lti es that the 9 St at e of

N ewMe xic o c angiv e [f

or c as es in w hic h] som eb ody inj ur es or hurts o r kil ls 10 our m ost vul ne ra ble , our c hil dr en . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt the n st at ed th at it did not 11 believe it had the authorityto alter the sentence bec ause it believed the law r equired 12 a m an da tor

y lif e se nte nc e. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t co urt im pose d a lif

e se nte nc e. T he 13 St at e re m ind ed

the dis tr ic t c ourt tha t D ef enda nt ha d on e pr ior

f el ony c onvi ct ion , 14 subjecting him to a one-y ear habitual offender enhancem ent, w hich the dist rict court 15 then added to Defendant’ s life sentence. 16 2. Stand ard of re view 17 { 63} “W e rev ie w th e tr ia l co ur t’s s en te nc in g fo r an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” State v. 18 Sot el o , 201 3- N MC A -0 28, ¶ 37, 296 P. 3d 1 232 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n41

1 om itt ed ). “ T he dis tr ic t c ourt ha s an ob lig at ionto co nsi de r m iti ga tin g f ac tor s in 2 se nte nc ing

. F ai lur e to d o so , whe the r ba se d onam isa ppr eh en sio n of

the auth or ity 3 gi ve n by s ta tu te or a be li ef t ha t a f or m al m ot io n i s re qu ire d, i s an ab us e o f di sc ret io n.” 4 Id

. ¶ 45. 5 3. De fend ant is ent itled t o resent encin g because t he d istrict co urt’s 6 m isu nd er st an di ng of it s au th or it y t o al te r th e ba sic se nt en ce ba se d on 7 m it iga ti ng c ir cu m st an ce s was an ab us e of d isc re ti on 8 { 64} “ A pe rs on wh o c om m its int en tio na l a

buse of ac hil d le ss than tw el ve y ears of 9 ag e tha t r es ult s inthe de ath of the c hil d is gui lty of af ir st d eg re e fe lon y

r es ult ing in 10 the death of a child.” Section 30-6-1(H). “ [T ] he basic sentence .

. . f or a fir st degree 11 fe lon y r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d [ is] li fe im

pr iso nm en t. ” Se ct ion31- 18- 12 15( A )( 1)

. “ T he ap pr opr ia te ba sic se nte nc e of im pr iso nm en t shal l be im

pose d up on a 13 person convi cted and sentenced pursuant to [Sec tion 31-18-15(A)] , unless the court 14 al te rs t h e se nt en ce p ur su an t t o t he pro vi si on s o f th e Cri m in al Sen te nc in g Act .” 15 N MS A 197 8, § 31 -1 8- 15( B) ( 2007). “ T he c ourt sh al l ho ld a se nte nc ing he ar ing to 16 determ ine if m itigatin g or aggravating circum stances exist and take whatever 17 ev iden ce or state m en ts i t de em s w ill a id i t i n r ea ch ing ade ci sio n to a lte r a ba sic 18 sentence.” Sec tion 3 1-18-15.1(A) . “ The j udge m ay alter the basic se nte nce as 19 pr es cr ibe d inS ec tio n 31 -1 8- 15
. . . upon . . . a fi ndi ng b y the j udge of

a ny m iti ga tin g42

1 ci rc um stanc es sur

ro undi ng the of

fe nse or co nc er

nin g the of

fe nde r. ” Se ct ion31- 18- 2 15. 1( A ), ( A )( 1)

. T he a m ount by w hic h th e se nte nc e m ay be m iti ga te d m

ust be 3 de te rm ine d by

the j udge , but m ay not ex ce ed one -thir d of

the ba sic se nte nc e. S ec tio n 4 31-18-15 .1(G ) (2009). 5 { 65} W e recently addressed the issue of whether a district court m ay

m itigate a life 6 se nte nc e fo r a co nvi ct ionof ch ild ab use re sul tin g in the de ath of ac hil d un de r tw el ve 7 in Sta te v . J

uan , 201 0- NMSC -0 41, 148 N
. M. 747 , 242 P
. 3d 3 14. T he de fe ndant i n 8 Ju an w as c onvi ct ed

of “ ch ild abuse r es ult ing in the d eath of ac hil d un de r tw el ve 9 y ears of age.” Id

. ¶ 10. T he dis tr ic t c ourt de cl ine d to co nside r m iti ga tin g 10 ci rcu m stanc es , c onc lud ing “ tha t the L eg isl at ur e int en de d th at

ali fe se nte nc e be 11 m andatory

for child abuse resulting in death, r easoning that the statute provid ed that 12 the a lte ration of a se nte nc e co uld not e xc ee d on e- thi rd

of the ba sic se nte nc e an d 13 one-third of a life sentence could no t be calculated. ” Id

. ¶ 35. 14 { 66} O n a

ppe al to thi s C ourt, the de fen da nt i n Ju an claim ed that the district court 15 erre d b y

fai li ng to co ns i d e r mi t i g at in g c irc um st an ces . Id . ¶ 36. W e observed that 16 “ Sections 31-18-15 and 31-18-15 .1 expl i c i t l y grant the trial court the authority to alter 17 the ba sic se ntence f

or a ll nonc ap ita l f

el oni es , inc lud ing tho se that c ar ry aba sic 18 sentence of life im

prisonm ent.” Ju an , 2010-NMS C-041, ¶ 39. W e noted that “ [a]43

1 sta tut e m

ust be c onstru ed

so tha t no part

of the statut e is ren de red sur plu sa ge or 2 superfluous ,” and concluded t h at i n order to conclude that dis trict courts lacked 3 au tho ri ty

to m iti ga te aba sic li fe se nte nc e fo r a co nvi ct ionof c hil d a buse r es ult ing in 4 de ath, w e w oul d have “ to re ad Su bse ct ion s (A )( 1) an d (A )( 2) out of S ec tio n 31 -1 8- 15, 5 which w e cannot and will not do.” Ju an , 201 0- N MS C- 041, ¶ 39 (inter na l qu ota tio n 6 m ark s and ci ta ti on om it te d)

. Thu s, we hel d t ha t “ Sect io ns 31 -1 8- 15 an d 3 1- 18 -1 5.1 7 gr an t the tr ia l co urt the au tho ri ty to al te r the ba sic se nte nc e of lif e im pr iso nm en t f

or 8 non capital felonies.” Ju an , 201 0- N MS C- 041, ¶ 39. F urthe r, w e he ld “ tha t the 9 thi rty -y ear te rm

f or paro le e lig ib ility

is the pr ope r num er ic al standard by w hic h to 10 m ea sur e the tr ia l c ourt’ s auth or ity to al te r a ba sic se nte nc e of lif e im pr iso nm en t, ” an d 11 dis tr ic t c ourts c oul d th er ef or e re duc e a lif

e se nte nc e by

up t o on e- thi rd

of thi rty , or 12 te n years. Id

. ¶

41. 13 { 67} In Ju an , w e also highli ghted th e L egislature’ s distin ction betw een noncapital 14 fe lon ie s, w hich carr

y aba sic se nte nc e of

li fe im pr iso nm en t, a nd c ap ita l f el oni es , 15 whi ch carr y

a m an da to ry

sen te nc e o f li fe i m

pr is on m en t. Id

. ¶ 42. The basic se ntence 16 of lif e im pr iso nm en t fo r a fi rs t de gr ee f el ony r es ult ing in the de ath of

ac hil d is se t ou t 17 in th e n on cap it al fel on y sen te nc in g s ta tu te , Sect io n 31 -1 8- 15 (A)(1 ). Acco rd in gl y , we 18 held that “ [u] nlike a m andatory sentence of life im prisonm ent, a basic sentence of life44

1 im pr iso nm en t i s su

bj ec t to al te ration

. . . if the tr ia l c ourt f

ind s ‘ an y m iti ga tin g 2 circum stances surroundi ng the offense or concerning the offender. ’ ” J u an , 201 0- 3 NMS C-041, ¶ 42 ( quot ing Se ction 31-18-15.1(A )(1))

. W e determ ined that the dis trict 4 co u rt“ i m

p ro p er l y fa i l ed t o co n s i d erm i t i g at i n g e v i d e n ce at [t h e d ]ef en d an t ’s 5 sentencing h ea ri n g pursuant to Sections 31-18 -15 and 31-18 -15.1.” Ju an , 201 0- 6 N MS C- 041, ¶

43. 7 { 68} H er e, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s m isunde rs tandi ng o f its auth or ity an d ob lig at ionto 8 co nsi de r m iti ga tin g c ir cu m stanc es , w hic h r es ult ed in it s f ai lur e to c onsi de r al te ri ng 9 t h e basic sentence, wa s an abuse of discretion. T herefor e, we reiter ate that w hen 1 0 i s s u i n g ab a s i c l i f

e s e n t e n c e s ub

je c tt o a l t e r a t i o n , d i s t r i c tc o u rt s h a v e t h e au t h o r i t y, 11 an d th e obl iga tio n, to co nsi de r pot en tia l m iti ga tin g ci rc um stanc es , an d w e re m an d to 12 the dis tr ic t c ourt f

or r es en te nc ing to de te rm in e w he the r the se nte nc e shou ld b e 13 al te re d. 14 III. CON CLU SION 15 { 69} While we acknowledge that it would have been i d eal for the district court 16 bel o w to issue two com pletely separate instructio ns for the elem ents of intentio nal 17 and reckless child abuse, w e hold that the instructio ns issued, a long with the special 18 ve rd ic t f

orm s, w er e suf

fi ci en t a s aw hol e to a cc ur at el y ins tr uc t the j ur y on the lawa nd45

1 do no t co nstitu te rever sible error. In order to clarify our cases on child abuse jury 2 ins tr uc tio ns, w e furthe r hol d tha t re ck le ss ch ild abuse r es ult ing in the de ath of ac hil d 3 unde r tw el ve is a le sse r- inc lud ed of fe nse of in te nti ona l c hil d a buse r es ult ing in the 4 de ath of

ac hil d un de r tw el ve , a nd d efen da nt s shou ld a cc or din gly be on n oti ce to 5 de fe nd a ga ins t bo th. I f a de fen da nt is charg ed w ithint en tio na l c hil d a

buse , a nd the 6 evidence presented could sup port a theory of either intentional or reckless abuse, 7 se parate ins tr

uc tio ns f or t he el em en ts o f ea chthe or y sho uld be giv en , a lon g w itha 8 s t e p - d o w n i n s t r

u c t i o n o n t h e p r o c e du r e f o r c o n s i d e r i n g e a c h t h e o ry. 9 { 70} Ne xt, w e find no error in the district cou rt’ s adm issio n of Dr . K rinsky ’ s expert 1 0 t es t i m o n y, an dwe fi n dt h at s u ff i ci en t ev i d en ce wa s p re s en t ed t o s up p o rt De fe n d an t ’s 11 co nvi ct ion

. F ina lly , w e hold th at the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s r ef

usa l t o c onsi de r m iti ga tin g 12 fa ct or s w he n se nte nc ing D ef en dant, ba se d onit s be lie f tha t the se nte nc e cou ld n ot b e 13 altered, wa s an abuse of discretion. T hus, fi n d i n g n o reversible er ror, we aff

irm 14 D ef en dant’ s c onvi ct ionf

or int en tio na l c hil d a

buse r es ultin g in the de ath of ac hil d 15 under twelve, and rem and t o t h e d i s trict court for r esentencing to d ecide w hether 16 D ef en dant’ s se nte nc e shou ld be al te re d ba se d on the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onsi de ratio n of 17 pot en tia l m iti ga tin g f

ac tor s. 18 { 71} IT IS S O ORDERE D.46

1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 2 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Ch ief Justice 3 WE CO NCUR:

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 5 PE TRAJIMEN EZMA ES, Justice

6

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 7 RIC HAR

D C . B OSSON , Just ice

8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 9 EDWA RD L. CH ÁV EZ , Just ice

10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 11 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice