Court Opinion

ID: 9559265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:25:17.128634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:24.683054
License: Public Domain

RANSOM, Justice (specially concurring). I specially concur to acknowledge that the gratuitous reference in Henderson to the essential-element test was not well thought out by me as the author of that opinion. 116 N.M. at 541, 865 P.2d at 1185. Under no view of the evidence in Henderson was indecent exposure the highest degree of the crime committed. See State v. Henderson, 116 N.M. 541, 543, 865 P.2d 1185, 1187 (Ct. App.1987) (recounting facts before the Court). Therefore, what was a secondary issue — Henderson’s entitlement to an instruction on a lesser included offense— should have ended with citation to State v. Escamilla, 107 N.M. 510, 512, 760 P.2d 1276, 1278 (1988) (hold cognate approach satisfies notice requirements of due process, and, when the lesser offense may be found to be the highest degree of crime committed, no more than the cognate approach should be required to entitle a defendant to the jury’s consideration of an offense less than those charged. In the latter circumstance, not present in Henderson, the defendant should not be required to have guilt or innocence decided, all or nothing, based on the greater offense. There is a legitimate concern that conviction of the greater offense may result because acquittal is an alternative that is unacceptable to the jury. Accordingly, the highest-degree-of-crime test perhaps should be determinative of the defendant’s right to an instruction on a lesser offense.