Opinion ID: 1111580
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder.

Text: {51} In Johnson, our Court of Appeals held that the crime of attempted depraved-mind murder did not exist because attempt is a specific-intent crime. Johnson, 103 N.M. at 369, 707 P.2d at 1179. In New Mexico, specific intent is the intent to do a further act or achieve a further consequence. Id. The specific intent for attempt is the intent to commit the crime attempted. Id. Because depraved-mind murder is an unintentional killing resulting from highly reckless behavior, attempted depraved-mind murder is logically impossible. Id. at 368, 707 P.2d at 1178 (quoting Commonwealth v. Griffin, 310 Pa.Super. 39, 456 A.2d 171, 177 (Pa.Super.Ct .1983)). Baca notes that conspiracy, like attempt, is a specific-intent crime. We agree. [1] Conspiracy and attempt are, as the [United States] Supreme Court has said, paradigmatic specific intent offenses. Michael E. Tigar,  Willfulness and Ignorance in Federal Criminal Law, 37 Clev.St.L.Rev. 525, 531 (1989) (citing United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 405, 100 S.Ct. 624, 632, 62 L.Ed.2d 575 (1980)). Baca argues that conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder is similarly impossible. We are not convinced that the crime of conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder is logically impossible. Nevertheless, we are convinced that, as presently written, Section 30-28-2 does not encompass the crime of depraved-mind murder. Conspiracy in New Mexico requires both an intent to agree and an intent to commit the offense which is the object of the conspiracy. As depraved-mind murder is presently defined by statute and case law, the charge of conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder was not valid. {52} The California Supreme Court recently reached a similar result in connection with conspiracy to commit that form of second-degree murder under California law known as implied malice murder. See People v. Swain, 12 Cal.4th 593, 49 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 394-97, 909 P.2d 994, 998-1001 (1996) (describing implied malice murder under California law). For implied malice murder, under California law, the required mens rea is implied from the specific intent to do some act other than an intentional killing and the resulting circumstance: a killing that has in fact occurred as `the direct result of such an act.' Id. 49 Cal.Rptr.2d at 395, 909 P.2d at 999 (quoting California Jury Instruction No. 8.31). The California Supreme Court reasoned the nature of implied malice murder is inconsistent with the nature of the crime of conspiracy. Id. In conspiracy, culpability is fixed at an earlier point in time than even the crime of attempt. Id. (quoting Model Penal Code § 5.03 cmt. 1, at 387-88). Because implied malice murder requires a particular result and depends on that result to support an inference of intent, the two crimes have been considered incompatible. Conspiracy cannot be based on this theory because a defendant cannot agree to kill and simultaneously disregard the risk of death. In State v. Beccia, 199 Conn. 1, 505 A.2d 683, 684-85 (1986), the Connecticut Supreme Court similarly described the crime of conspiracy to commit arson in the third degree as not cognizable under Connecticut law. Id. 505 A.2d at 685. The Court explained that conspirators can agree to start a fire intentionally or to cause an explosion or even agree to act recklessly, [but] they cannot agree to accomplish a required specific result unintentionally. Id. at 684. {53} We construe Section 30-28-2 to limit conspiracy as provided in the Model Penal Code and applied in California and Connecticut. Therefore, we hold that Section 30-28-2 does not encompass conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder. Baca might have been charged with conspiracy to shoot at or from a vehicle. Cf. Beccia, 505 A.2d at 684; Model Penal Code § 5.03 cmt. 2(c)(i), at 408 (distinguishing a crime defined in terms of conduct that creates a risk of harm, such as reckless driving or driving above certain speed limit, from crime defined in terms of a result). Under New Mexico law as it presently stands, he could not be charged with conspiracy to commit depraved-mind murder. For these reasons, we reverse Baca's conviction for conspiracy to commit first-degree, depraved-mind murder.