Opinion ID: 2634702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Murder by an Inmate at a Penal Institution

Text: {4} In enumerating the aggravating circumstances that make a first degree murder eligible for the death penalty under the Capital Felony Sentencing Act, the Legislature has specified that it is an aggravating circumstance if, while incarcerated in a penal institution in New Mexico, the defendant, with the intent to kill, murdered a person who was at the time incarcerated in or lawfully on the premises of a penal institution in New Mexico. Section 31-20A-5(D). The State alleged in its notice of intent to seek the death penalty that Defendants murdered Garcia with the intent to kill while he was lawfully on the premises of GCCF, a penal institution in New Mexico. Defendants claim that this aggravating circumstance should not apply in this case because GCCF is not a penal institution within the meaning of Section 31-20A-5(D) or because Garcia was not lawfully on the premises. We reject both of these arguments. {5} The chief aim of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Roth v. Thompson, 113 N.M. 331, 332, 825 P.2d 1241, 1242 (1992). [T]he plain language of the statute [is] the primary indicator of legislative intent. Whitely v. N.M. State Pers. Bd., 115 N.M. 308, 311, 850 P.2d 1011, 1014 (1993). The Legislature specifically instructed that penal institution in Section 31-20A-5(D) includes facilities under the jurisdiction of the corrections and criminal rehabilitation department and county and municipal jails. [1] In a different provision, the Legislature provided that local jail includes facilities operated by a private independent contractor pursuant to an agreement with a county, municipality or combination of such local governments. NMSA 1978, § 33-3-28(D)(2) (1985). See generally Ogden, 118 N.M. at 243, 880 P.2d at 854 (Statutes on the same general subject should be construed by reference to each other . . . .); Roth, 113 N.M. at 334, 825 P.2d at 1244 (A fundamental rule of statutory construction is that all provisions of a statute, together with other statutes in pari materia, must be read together to ascertain the legislative intent.). In addition, the Legislature has stated that [c]ontracts between local public bodies and private independent contractors for the operation, or provision and operation, of a jail are specifically authorized. NMSA 1978, § 33-3-1(B) (1984). {6} In accordance with this statutory authority, Wackenhut Corrections Corp. had a contract with the County to operate GCCF as a correctional facility. Pursuant to a separate contract between the County and the Department of Corrections, which was incorporated into the County's contract with Wackenhut, GCCF housed inmates, including Defendants, who were committed to the supervision of the Department of Corrections. These inmates were subject to the typical consequences of incarceration in a public facility, such as receiving time served on their sentences and being subject to prosecution for escape or other crimes directed at inmates, see NMSA 1978, § 30-22-8 (1963) (Escape from jail consists of any person who shall have been lawfully committed to any jail, escaping or attempting to escape from such jail.) (emphasis added), and the administrators of GCCF were obligated to comply with specific statutory duties, including the maintenance of a clean facility and the provision of food for the prisoners, NMSA 1978, §§ 33-3-5 (1984) (applying to independent contractor[s]), -6 (1984) (same). We believe it is clear that GCCF is a penal institution within the plain language of Section 31-20A-5. The fact that GCCF housed inmates from the Department rather than county inmates is immaterial both for the definition of local jail in Section 33-3-28 and the definition of penal institution in Section 31-20A-5(D). Thus, GCCF is a penal institution within the plain language of the statute. {7} Defendants also claim that Garcia was not lawfully on the premises at the time of the killing because he had not completed his training as a corrections officer. The County's contracts with Wackenhut and the Department of Corrections provided that GCCF corrections officers receive training that complied with Department and County policies. The contracts further provided that the Department would train all corrections officers at its main training academy or at GCCF, which would be designated as a branch of the Department's training academy for this limited purpose. After being hired by Wackenhut in January 1999, Garcia attended a ten-week training program at the Department's main training academy. However, Garcia did not receive his certification from the Department because he did not pass an AR-15 rifle test. The Department issued a waiver of certification for Garcia's duties inside the facility pending Garcia's retaking of the rifle test and instructed Wackenhut not to allow Garcia to assume the duties of an armed post, meaning work patrol and transport. Although Garcia was scheduled to attend another rifle training session, he could not attend because of car problems, and the waiver from the Department expired on May 31, 1999. Garcia was later trained in the use of a shotgun and pistol, but he did not attend another training session for the AR-15 rifle prior to his death and thus had not been certified as a corrections officer by the Department. Following Garcia's death, the Department notified Wackenhut that it was not to allow uncertified individuals to work on posts designated for correctional officers. From the time it began operating GCCF through the time of the alleged murder, Wackenhut had used only shotguns and pistols at the correctional facility and did not use the AR-15 rifle. The Department's training academy branch at GCCF did not require AR-15 rifle training, and the Wackenhut corrections officers who attended training at this branch, rather than the main training academy Garcia attended, received certification from the Department despite the absence of AR-15 rifle training. {8} In arguing that Garcia's presence on the premises of GCCF was unlawful due to his lack of certification, we believe that Defendants overlook the plain language and purpose of the statute. Section 31-20A-5(D) applies to anyone lawfully on the premises of a penal institution, not just certified corrections officers. Thus, this provision includes other employees at the institution who are not certified corrections officers, as well as visitors and other inmates. The completeness of Garcia's training had no effect on Garcia's lawful presence at GCCF. Garcia was an employee of GCCF and was authorized by GCCF administrators to be on the premises at the time of the killing. In their motions to dismiss, Defendants challenged that Garcia was a peace officer within the meaning of Section 31-20A-5(A), which is discussed further below. However, Defendants did not challenge the State's allegation that Garcia was murdered while acting in the course of his duties as a GCCF employee, and Defendant Sanchez noted in his motion to dismiss that it is undisputed that [Garcia] was employed by the Wackenhut Corporation and working as a correctional officer at the time of his death. Garcia was therefore lawfully present at the facility within the plain meaning of Section 31-20A-5(D). {9} Further, the legislative purpose of this aggravating circumstance is to deter inmates from committing murder. See Roberts v. Southwest Cmty. Health Servs., 114 N.M. 248, 251, 837 P.2d 442, 445 (1992) (Statutes should be construed so as to facilitate their operation and the achievement of the goals as specified by the legislature.). We believe that Defendants' construction of the statute would frustrate this legislative purpose. We believe that the Legislature intended to deter inmates from murdering correctional officers with a technical deficiency in training to the same extent as the murder of other corrections employees, fellow inmates, and visitors. We conclude that this argument is without merit, see Ogden, 118 N.M. at 241 n.9, 880 P.2d at 852 n.9, and we affirm the district court's ruling that there was probable cause for this aggravating circumstance.