Opinion ID: 891582
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Criminal Child Abuse by Endangerment

Text: {15} Our Legislature has also fashioned a parallel criminal scheme to punish conduct that endangers a child. A third-degree felony, child abuse by endangerment occurs when an adult knowingly, intentionally, or negligently places a child in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health. Section 30-6-1(D)-(E). Child abuse by endangerment, as opposed to physical abuse of a child, is a special classification designed to address situations where an accused's conduct exposes a child to a significant risk of harm, even though the child does not suffer a physical injury. State v. Ungarten, 115 N.M. 607, 609, 856 P.2d 569, 571 (Ct.App. 1993). Under this standard, an accused's culpability is premised upon the degree of danger created by his conduct. {16} Taken literally, our endangerment statute could be read broadly to permit prosecution for any conduct, however remote the risk, that  may endanger [a] child's life or health. However, by classifying child endangerment as a third-degree felony, our Legislature anticipated that criminal prosecution would be reserved for the most serious occurrences, and not for minor or theoretical dangers. See Santillanes, 115 N.M. at 222, 849 P.2d at 365 (criminal prosecutions are for conduct that is morally culpable, not merely inadvertent.). Therefore, we have taken a more restrictive view of the endangerment statute, and have interpreted the phrase  may endanger to require a reasonable probability or possibility that the child will be endangered. Ungarten, 115 N.M. at 609, 856 P.2d at 571; see also State v. McGruder, 1997-NMSC-023, ¶ 37, 123 N.M. 302, 940 P.2d 150 (applying Ungarten reasonable probability or possibility test). {17} New Mexico courts have evaluated child endangerment under the reasonable probability or possibility standard for the past sixteen years. In application, however, this standard has created uncertainty in child endangerment cases because probability and possibility connote two different levels of risk. Probability conveys a certain likelihood that a result will occur, whereas possibility means that something is merely capable of occurring. As an unintended consequence, our use of both terms to define endangerment has left unclear the amount or degree of risk necessary to support a conviction. We, therefore, take this opportunity to examine whether we should employ a more precise terminology in describing the degree of risk to which a child must be exposed before it can constitute criminal child endangerment. {18} Although may is defined as a possibility, our concerns for adequate notice and fairness to the accused suggest that the relevant conduct must create more than a possibility of harm before it may be punished as a felony. Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, ¶ 34, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367 (In assessing whether a statute provides adequate notice, we ask if the statute `allows individuals of ordinary intelligence a fair opportunity to determine whether their conduct is prohibited.' (quoting State v. Laguna, 1999-NMCA-152, ¶ 25, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896)). In writing and construing the criminal law, both our state legislature and this Court owe the people of this state a duty of clarity. We cannot ask our citizens ... to guess at the meaning of a criminal statute. State v. Sung, 2000-NMCA-031, ¶ 15, 128 N.M. 786, 999 P.2d 430. To satisfy the constitutional requirements of due process, a criminal statute must, with sufficient certainty, alert a person of ordinary intelligence that his conduct is prohibited. See State v. Andrews, 1997-NMCA-017, ¶ 10, 123 N.M. 95, 934 P.2d 289; see also Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, ¶ 32, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367 (In the criminal context, due process requires that a statute be drafted so that it provides fair warning of the conduct sought to be proscribed and so it does not encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement.). As the Colorado Supreme Court observed when construing an endangerment statute identical to our own, we seriously doubt whether `may' in a criminal statute provides a fair description of the prohibited conduct, since virtually any conduct directed toward a child has the possibility, however slim, of endangering the child's life or health. People v. Hoehl, 193 Colo. 557, 568 P.2d 484, 486 (1977) ( en banc ) (charging defendant with endangerment after allegedly holding child's hand to a radiator, resulting in serious second- and third-degree burns) (interpreting prior version of Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-6-401(1)(A) (1973)). {19} To avoid due process and vagueness problems, courts have interpreted may to require a greater degree of certainty to effectuate legislative intent. Black's Law Dictionary 1000 (8th ed.2004); Hoehl, 568 P.2d at 486 (construing an identical endangerment statute's use of may endanger as requiring a reasonable probability that the child's life or health will be endangered (emphasis added)); State v. Fisher, 230 Kan. 192, 631 P.2d 239, 242 (1981) (word may as used in Kansas child abuse statute given restrictive construction, indicating reasonable probability or likelihood the child would be placed in situation whereby that child's life or health will be endangered) (emphasis added)). But see State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, ¶ 13, 146 N.M. 70, 206 P.3d 579 (interpreting the term may to require only a possibility that other traffic would be affected for purposes of a misdemeanor turn signal violation). {20} However, we acknowledge there are many situations that may not produce a strict mathematical probability of harm, but nevertheless endanger a child. For example, if a defendant placed one bullet in a six-shot revolver, spun the chamber, placed the pistol to the child's head, and pulled the trigger, the risk that the child will suffer a lethal shot is only 16.67%, less than a statistical probability. Yet few would doubt the very real and unacceptable risk of harm to the child. {21} Even more problematic are situations such as the present case, where the probability of harm cannot easily be measured or accurately quantified as a mathematical statistic. Therefore, a standard that requires proof of a strict probability under all circumstances poses too rigid a bar in its application. For these reasons, it is apparent that neither probability nor possibility provides an accurate, universal description of legislative intent. {22} Accordingly, we look to the Uniform Jury Instruction on child endangerment for guidance on the endangerment standard. UJI 14-604 NMRA asks the jury to determine whether the defendant caused [the child] to be placed in a situation which endangered the life or health of [the child]. The UJI does not define endangerment. See Black's Law Dictionary 568 (8th ed.2004) (endangerment is [t]he act or an instance of putting someone or something in danger; exposure to peril or harm). However, to find that the accused acted with the requisite mens rea, the jury is instructed that it must find that defendant's conduct created a substantial and foreseeable risk  of harm. See UJI 14-604 (emphasis added). This standard more closely aligns with the legislative purpose that animates the child endangerment statuteto punish conduct that creates a truly significant risk of serious harm to children. {23} Our prior cases illustrate that there are several factors the factfinder may consider to determine whether the risk created by an accused's conduct is substantial and foreseeable. One is the gravity of the threatened harm. See State v. Trujillo, 2002-NMCA-100, ¶ 21, 132 N.M. 649, 53 P.3d 909 (stating that a defendant's conduct must create a substantial risk with potentially serious consequences to the life or health of a child). It is the gravity of the risk that serves to place an individual on notice that his conduct is perilous, and potentially criminal, thereby satisfying due process concerns. See State v. Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC-010, ¶ 43, 143 N.M. 373, 176 P.3d 1105 (What distinguishes civil negligence from criminal negligence is not whether the person is subjectively aware of a risk of harm; rather, it is the magnitude of the risk itself.  (Emphasis added.)). {24} In many of our prior endangerment cases, the seriousness of the threatened injury has often been apparent. See Graham, 2005-NMSC-004, ¶ 10, 137 N.M. 197, 109 P.3d 285 (defendant left marijuana in areas accessible to children, including a potent marijuana bud in a baby crib); McGruder, 1997-NMSC-023, ¶¶ 5-6, 123 N.M. 302, 940 P.2d 150 (defendant fatally shot mother's boyfriend before threatening to shoot mother who was standing in front of her child in the line of fire); Ungarten, 115 N.M. at 609-10, 856 P.2d at 571-72 (defendant brandished knife at child's father while child was standing directly behind father, and child testified that the knife came so close to his body that he could not discern whether it was directed at him or his father); State v. Guilez, 2000-NMSC-020, 129 N.M. 240, 4 P.3d 1231 (defendant failed to secure three-year-old child in a safety seat and drove his truck while intoxicated at night without working head lights or tail lights before crashing into a fence), abrogated by State v. Santillanes, 2001-NMSC-018, 130 N.M. 464, 27 P.3d 456; State v. Castaneda, 2001-NMCA-052, ¶ 14, 130 N.M. 679, 30 P.3d 368 (defendant drove while intoxicated on the wrong side of a divided highway with children in the vehicle that were unsecured by seatbelts). {25} We have also relied on the Legislature's independent assessment that conduct is inherently perilous when evaluating endangerment convictions. See Graham, 2005-NMSC-004, ¶ 12, 137 N.M. 197, 109 P.3d 285 (noting that the Legislature's designation of marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance, increased penalties for distributing marijuana to minors or in the vicinity of schools, all illustrate a legislative determination that marijuana is a dangerous substance, particularly for minors.). Where a defendant's underlying conduct violates a separate criminal statute, such legislative declaration of harm may be useful, though not dispositive, to an endangerment analysis when the Legislature has defined the act as a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. {26} In addition, although no longer the determinative factor, the likelihood that harm will occur remains an important consideration when evaluating the magnitude of the risk. We have declined to uphold endangerment convictions where the risk of harm is too remote, which may indicate that the harm was not foreseeable. See State v. Clemonts, 2006-NMCA-031, ¶ 16, 139 N.M. 147, 130 P.3d 208 (reversing child endangerment conviction where defendant committed misdemeanor traffic offenses while engaged in low-speed police chase with children in car but defendant did not expose a substantial risk to the children's lives or health as passengers in Defendant's car (emphasis added)); State v. Roybal, 115 N.M. 27, 34, 846 P.2d 333, 340 (Ct.App.1992) (reversing conviction for child endangerment where defendant left his six-year-old daughter in car near a drug transaction but removed from any actual threat of harm); Jensen, 2006-NMSC-045, ¶ 10, 140 N.M. 416, 143 P.3d 178 (holding the State must prove that a defendant place[d] a child within the zone of danger and physically close to an inherently dangerous situation).