Opinion ID: 891645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Charges Brought Against Defendant

Text: {14} In this case, which arose nearly two years after these amendments were enacted, the State charged Defendant with Abuse of a ChildIntentional (Resulting in Death), related to the death of the 17-month-old Child. However, nothing in the record reflects any awareness of the 2005 amendments. No pleading cites the 2005 amendments, makes reference to a first degree felony resulting in the death of a child, indicates that Defendant potentially faced a life sentence, or includes the Child's age or states that she was under 12 years old. [3] Instead, all references to Defendant's child abuse charge are consistent with the pre-2005 version of the statute and describe the offense as a first degree felony, which carries an 18-year sentence, not a first degree felony resulting in the death of a child. {15} The record is similarly ambiguous on another point. Our Court of Appeals held in 2004 that negligent and intentional child abuse resulting in death are separate crimes, neither subsumed within nor lesser included offenses of the other. See State v. Schoonmaker, 2005-NMCA-012, ¶ 27, 136 N.M. 749, 105 P.3d 302 (filed in 2004), rev'd on other grounds, 2008-NMSC-010, 143 N.M. 373, 176 P.3d 1105; see also Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC-010, ¶ 46 n. 4, 143 N.M. 373, 176 P.3d 1105 (We agree with the Court of Appeals[] . . . that intentional child abuse is not the same crime as, or a lesser included offense of, negligent child abuse.). As a result, the State must charge both offenses in the alternative if it intends to seek a conviction on either ground. See Schoonmaker, 2005-NMCA-012, ¶ 27, 136 N.M. 749, 105 P.3d 302 (It is also clear that these two statutes are mutually exclusiveone cannot commit an intentional act and an unintentional but substantially risky act at the same time, even though the act is voluntary as to both and the evidence may be sufficient to charge both offenses as alternative theories.). {16} Put another way, where only intentional child abuse resulting in death is charged, that is the only offense for which an accused may be tried and convicted. See State v. Davis, 2009-NMCA-067, ¶ 16, 146 N.M. 550, 212 P.3d 438 (The indictment charged Defendant with intentional child abuse . . . and that was the only crime for which [the d]efendant could properly be tried and convicted.). When charged with only the one offense, an accused can avoid conviction altogether by successfully arguing that if the accused caused the child's death, he or she did so negligently and not intentionally. {17} Here, the State charged Defendant with Abuse of a Child Intentional (Resulting in Death). (Emphasis added.) The same document, however, described the offense as knowing[], intentional[] or negligent []language taken directly from the child abuse statute. See § 30-6-1(D) (emphasis added). Defendant then waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty to intentional child abuse resulting in death; neither the State nor the trial court demanded a plea to negligent child abuse resulting in death. The State never filed an amended criminal information that included a charge of negligent child abuse resulting in death, and Defendant never received or waived a probable cause determination as to that charge. Astonishingly, however, up until the scheduled date of trial both the prosecution and the defense inconsistently referred to the charge(s) against Defendant as including negligent child abuse resulting in death. {18} On the morning of trial, Defendant agreed to plead guilty to the offense of intentional child abuse resulting in death. The agreement for the first time described the child abuse offense as a first degree felony [that] carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in the DOC. In return, the State dropped the tampering and aggravated battery charges. The plea agreement notes the withdrawn charges but makes no mention of a charge of negligent child abuse resulting in death, further indicating that Defendant had never been charged separately with that offense.