Court Opinion

ID: 9531299
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:09:34.910777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:24.232257
License: Public Domain

SUTIN, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the opinion of the Court. Defendant Butler contends that the trial court failed to instruct the jury sufficiently on criminal intent, even though the jury was instructed in the language of the statute. New Mexico law on instructions as to intent has been in a state of confusion and flux since State v. Bachicha, 84 N.M. 397, 503 P.2d 1175 (Ct.App.1972), in which this Court held that an instruction in the language of the statute was not sufficient as to criminal intent. One of the most pervasive problems for the Bench and Bar in New Mexico in recent years has been dealing with intent as an element of various crimes. The confusion and frustration in this area can be seen in a series of opinions (majority, concurring and dissenting) in the Court of Appeals. Thompson III, M. B. and Gagne, N. L. The Confusing Law of Criminal Intent in New Mexico, 5 N.M.L.Rev. 63 (November, 1974). In a concurring opinion in State v. Fuentes, 85 N.M. 274, 277, 511 P.2d 760, 761 (Ct.App.1973), I suggested that the problem of specific intent vs. general intent “may be solved if and when the Supreme Court adopts uniform jury instructions in criminal cases.” In a dissenting opinion in State v. Lopez, 84 N.M. 453, 454, 504 P.2d 1086, 1087 (Ct.App.1972), I said: I further believe that we should abolish the distinction between “specific intent” and “general intent” in instructions in criminal cases. Now, however, I believe one can see through the “confusion and frustration” in this area of the law. The law on criminal intent may now come to a workable resting place. The Supreme Court Committee on Uniform Jury Instructions has submitted its final draft. If adopted the problem is solved. The proposed instructions on criminal intent omit “specific intent”. There is one instruction which defines criminal intent. It shall be used in every crime requiring criminal intent, except first and second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. If the Supreme Court adopts this pattern of criminal intent instructions, confusion and frustration will disappear. Reversals on criminal intent instructions will be laid to rest.