I often joke that the New Mexico Bar Bulletin should be renamed the "Bridgeforth and Vigil Reader" because these two district court judges are probably the names you see most often in the Bulletin, and you can rest assured that at least one of their cases will appear in the Bulletin every other week or so. But, I have to symphathize with Judge Vigil on this one, as I would have made the same call he did in State v. Contreras (July 24, 2007). However, Judge Sutin reminds all of us that different elements of a crime can have different levels of intent.
And good Judge Sutin attacks three issues in less than twenty pages (15 actually), which I must say is pretty damn groundbreaking. Usually, as us faithful readers of the Bulletin know, when you see Sutin's name as author of an opinion you can settle on in for an evening of some heavy reading---but not here. Thank you, Judge.
Great fact pattern: Drunk guys goes to hotel and gets a room (room 125). However, instead of going to room 125, he goes to room 121 and when he attempts to open 121's door with his card key for 125, GUESS WHAT, the door won't open. Therefore, drunk guy picks up a heavy aluminum trash can and throws it through the window to room 121 because he needs to get in quick to take a wizzz for CHRISSSAKE. Question is: did he have the intent to break and enter into 121 since he thought it was room 125 and he had permission to enter 125? Thus, the defense attorney proffers a mistake of fact instruction to the court due to his client being mistaken that he was entering the wrong room. Good lawyering, I say.
State v. Contreras, July 24, 2007 (Author: Sutin)(Concurring: Kennedy and Castillo)
Issue 1: Did the district court err when it denied the defendant's proffered jury instruction on mistake of fact regarding the crime of breaking and entering?
Issue 1 Holding: Yes, the district court erred because although element 1 (the entering element) and element 3 (the breaking element) both only require a general intent to commit those elements, element 2 (the knowledge element) requires more than just a general intent and therfore a mistake of fact instruction was pertinent to that element and the district court should have instructed the jury as such.
Issus 2: Does the Defendant have to place direct evidence before the factfinder before the court should allow certian defenses to be raised by the defendant?
Issue 2 Holding: No. Since the intent of the defendant is usually inferred from other facts presented by the State, a defendant's lack of intent can be inferred by the same set of facts, and therefore the defendant does not have to place direct evidence before the factfinder to request an instruction that would tend to negate an element of a crime going to intent or knowledge.
Issue 3: Did the district court err when it refused to give a lesser included instruction (trespassing with damage) for the crime of breaking and entering?
Issue 3 Holding: No, the district court did not err when it refused to give the lesser included instruction because a lesser included instruction should only be given when (1) the defendant could not have committed the greater offense in the manner described in the charging document without also committing the lesser offense, and therefore notice of the greater offense necessarily incorporates notice of the lesser offense; (2) the evidence adduced at trial is sufficient to sustain a conviction on the lesser offense; and (3) the elements that distinguish the lesser and greater offenses are sufficiently in dispute such that a jury rationally could acquit on the greater offense and convict on the lesser. In the present case, since no reasonable jury could have found that the defendant committed the lesser offense without also committing the greater offense, the district court did not err when it refused to give the lesser included instruction to the jury.
0 comments:
Post a Comment