State v. Gonzalez
Decision Date | 07 February 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 23,711.,23,711. |
Citation | 107 P.3d 547,137 N.M. 107 |
Parties | STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrian GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, Arthur W. Pepin, Elizabeth Blaisdell, Assistant Attorneys General, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee.
John Bigelow, Chief Public Defender, Jennifer Byrns, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.
{1} The issues in this case are (1) whether the crime of bringing contraband into a jail in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-22-14(B) (1976), is a strict liability offense and (2) whether fundamental error was committed when the district court failed to include a mental state as an essential element of the crime in its instructions to the jury. We hold that an essential element of the crime is knowing possession of the contraband and that failing to include this essential element in the jury instructions constituted fundamental error. We therefore reverse and remand for a new trial.
{2} A criminal information charged that on November 17, 2001, Defendant "did intentionally carry [c]ocaine into the confines of the Otero County Detention Center, a county jail," or in the alternative, that he "did intentionally have in his possession [c]ocaine, a controlled substance, knowing or believing it to be [c]ocaine" in violation of Section 30-22-14(B) and NMSA 1978, § 30-31-23(D) (1990).
{3} The evidence at trial was that Defendant was an inmate at the Otero County Detention Center (Detention Center). On November 17, 2001, Defendant returned to the Detention Center from his work release assignment. As Defendant changed out of his work clothes, a detention officer noticed that he was clutching a clear plastic bag containing a clear liquid. The officer confiscated the bag. Subsequent testing revealed that the liquid in the bag contained cocaine.
{4} Defendant testified he stopped by the home of a relative on his way back to the Detention Center, where he filled up the baggie with water. To the best of his knowledge, the baggie he brought into the Detention Center contained only water. The Detention Center employs a zero tolerance policy with regard to the work release program and anyone on work release is subject to random drug testing. Defendant's plan was to have the baggie of water with him in the locker area or his pod so that if he was selected for a random drug test, he would use it instead of urine.
{5} Defendant felt he needed to do this because he had already been subject to two random drug tests while on work release. The first test was positive for drugs, so Defendant requested a retest be performed by a certified medical officer instead of a regular detention employee. The retest was negative for the presence of drugs. The second random sample also tested positive for drugs, and Defendant again requested a retest by a certified medical officer. However, the second time, the retest was positive for drugs. When Defendant tested positive for drugs the second time, the Detention Center called his employer, and he lost his job. Defendant was worried that if he tested positive for drugs again, he would lose his current job as well and not be able to provide financial support for his family.
{6} The district court instructed the jury that to find Defendant guilty of bringing contraband into the jail, the state was required to prove the following essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
{7} The jury was also instructed that it had to find Defendant acted with a general intent as follows:
In addition to the other elements of bringing contraband into a place of imprisonment and possession of cocaine, the [S]tate must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt that [Defendant] acted intentionally when he committed the crime. A person acts intentionally when he purposely does an act which the law declares to be a crime, even though he may not know that his act is unlawful. Whether [Defendant] acted intentionally may be inferred from all of the surrounding circumstances, such as the manner in which he acts, the means used, his conduct, and any statements made by him.
The jury found Defendant guilty of bringing contraband into a place of imprisonment, and he appeals.
{8} We review de novo whether Section 30-22-14(B) is a strict liability crime. See State v. Torres, 2003-NMCA-101, ¶ 5, 134 N.M. 194, 75 P.3d 410
(. )
{9} A violation of Section 30-22-14(B) is a fourth degree felony. It states, "[b]ringing contraband into a jail consists of carrying contraband into the confines of a county or municipal jail." Id. Section 30-22-14(C)(4) includes cocaine in its definition of "contraband." Defendant argues that commission of the act — bringing contraband into a jail — must be accompanied by a mental state, or mens rea, for the crime to be committed. He further contends that the necessary mental state is knowledge of possession of the contraband. The State responds that Defendant's knowledge is irrelevant, contending that bringing contraband into a jail is a strict liability crime which does not have a mens rea element. For the reasons which follow, we agree with Defendant.
{10} "A crime generally consists of two elements, a physical, wrongful deed (the `actus reus'), and a guilty mind that produces the act (the `mens rea')." 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law § 126, at 213 (1998); see State v. Leal, 104 N.M. 506, 509, 723 P.2d 977, 980 (Ct.App.1986)
(). "`Mens rea' refers to a mental state... which expresses the intent necessary for a particular act to constitute a crime." 21 Am.Jur.2d supra, at 213; see State v. Austin, 80 N.M. 748, 750, 461 P.2d 230, 232 (Ct.App.1969) ( ).
{11} On the other hand, some crimes do not require the existence of a mental state, or mens rea. "A strict liability crime is [a crime] which imposes a criminal sanction for an unlawful act without requiring a showing of criminal intent." State v. Harrison, 115 N.M. 73, 77, 846 P.2d 1082, 1086 (Ct.App.1992); see Laurie L. Levenson, Good Faith Defenses: Reshaping Strict Liability Crimes, 78 Cornell L.Rev. 401, 417 (1993) ( ). Even "innocent-minded and blameless people" may be convicted of a strict liability crime. 1 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 5.5, at 382 (2d ed.2003).
461 P.2d at 232 (same).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo Cnty.
...any statements made by him]. NMRA, Crim. UJI 14–141 (footnotes omitted).82See State v. Gonzalez, 2005–NMCA–031, ¶ 23, 137 N.M. 107, 107 P.3d 547, 554 (N.M.App.2005) ( “[G]eneral intent is only the intention to make the bodily movement which constitutes the act which the crime requires.” (in......
-
J.H. ex rel. Her Minor Child J.P. v. Bernalillo Cnty. & J.M. Sharkey
...conduct [and any statements made by him].NMRA, Crim. UJI 14-141 (footnotes omitted).99 See State v. Gonzales, 2005-NMCA-031, ¶ 23, 137 N.M. 107, 107 P.3d 547, ("general intent is only the intention to make the bodily movement which constitutes the act which the crime requires" (internal quo......
-
U.S. v. Marquez
...court of appeals has said in dicta that the possession of a weapon by an inmate requires knowing possession, State v. Gonzalez, 137 N.M. 107, 107 P.3d 547, 552 (N.M.Ct.App.2005), the New Mexico Supreme Court has said that " '[e]vil intent or intended use for an improper purpose is not an el......
-
State v. Nozie
...only in response to an act done with at least the minimum culpable state of mind."); State v. Gonzalez, 2005-NMCA-031, ¶ 14, 137 N.M. 107, 107 P.3d 547 ("Strict liability crimes are the exception. They are generally recognized under statutes in the nature of regulatory measures and designed......