State v. Quick

• Decision Date: 15 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. A-1-CA-37876,No. A-1-CA-37844,A-1-CA-37844,A-1-CA-37876
• Parties: STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDRA QUICK, Defendant-Appellant. and STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLEN QUICK, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDRA QUICK, Defendant-Appellant.andSTATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLEN QUICK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A-1-CA-37844

No. A-1-CA-37876

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

September 15, 2020

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY

Angie K. Schneider, District Judge

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General

Santa Fe, NM

John J. Woykovsky, Assistant Attorney General

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender

Santa Fe, NM

MJ Edge, Assistant Appellate Defender

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant Sandra Quick

Stalter Law LLC

Kenneth H. Stalter

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant Allen Quick

MEMORANDUM OPINION

B. ZAMORA, Judge.

{1} Defendants¹ Sandra Quick and Allen Quick appeal following convictions of six counts of child abuse by endangerment, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-6-1(D)(1) (2009). Defendants argue that there was insufficient evidence to support their convictions for child abuse. Defendant Allen Quick also appeals his convictions of eight counts of extreme animal cruelty, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-18-1(B) (2007), and twenty-two counts of animal cruelty, contrary to Section 30-18-1(E), arguing that his multiple convictions for animal cruelty violate the prohibition against double jeopardy. We reverse Defendants' child abuse convictions, but otherwise affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} In December 2015, Defendants were living in a recreational vehicle (RV) on a forty-two-acre lot near the outskirts of Tularosa in Otero County, New Mexico with a relative named Ryan Boggs and their six children (Children), who ranged in age from two to ten years old. On December 5, 2015, Deputy Lee Wilder of the Otero County Sheriff's Department was dispatched to Defendants' property to perform a welfare check on Children. Upon arrival at the property, Deputy Wilder scanned the area for potential dangers to Children's safety and photographed the various conditions on the property he observed. Deputy Wilder met Defendants Allen Quick and Sandra Quick, who he described as "dirty" and emitting a foul odor as if they "hadn't bathed in some time." After meeting Defendants, Deputy Wilder continued to investigate the property where he observed a large, uncovered, excavated trash pit and expressed concern because of the presence of a child's bicycle in close proximity. In addition, Deputy Wilder observed an abundance of debris including trash, building supplies, clothing, children's toys, housing goods, and various other items scattered around the RV. Deputy Wilder also witnessed a large amount of animal feces near the RV. Defendant Sandra Quick later informed Deputy Wilder that there were twenty-two dogs and eight cats on the property.

{3} After Deputy Wilder completed his investigation of the exterior of Defendants' property, Defendants permitted Deputy Wilder to examine the interior of the RV. Deputy Wilder described the smell inside the RV as "shocking." He testified that when the door opened, "It was like a wall hit you. I recognized some of the odors—feces, odor of urine, body odor—and it was all mixed into one." All Children were inside the RV when he entered. The interior of the RV was dirty and in disarray. Defendants' toilet contained unflushed feces, and the floor of the RV was strewn with trash, blankets, bedding, and various other debris. Deputy Wilder observed several broken windows in the RV that were covered with cardboard or paper and testified he "[could] hear the wind whistling through." There were bugs and animal food in the sink, and Deputy Wilder testified that a foul odor emanated from the refrigerator, indicating the presence of spoiled food. Although most of the animals lived outside, some of the dogs and cats resided inside the RV. Deputy Wilder asked Defendant Allen Quick about the lack of water in the toilet, to which Defendant Allen Quick replied that "they would pump water in every now and then to flush out the system" using a 300-gallon water tank stored outside the RV. Deputy Wilder noted that there was still water in the container at the time, and Defendant Allen Quick stated he would fill up the 300-gallon tank when it became empty. The State's photographic evidence showed that Children lived in close proximity to the conditions documented by Deputy Wilder.

{4} Based on the conditions Deputy Wilder observed during his investigation of Defendants' property, Deputy Wilder believed that Children were in danger. Accordingly, Deputy Wilder removed Children from the property, and transferred them into CYFD custody. Annette Munguia, the on-call caseworker for CYFD, made contact with Children at the Otero County Sheriff's Office following their removal from the property and transfer to CYFD custody. Munguia testified that "the two younger ones didn't have shoes or socks on" and Children "were all dirty, very dirty."

{5} During trial, the prosecution presented expert testimony from Dr. Jana Williams, a board-certified pediatrician, detailing the potential health risks posed by the various conditions existing on Defendants' property. Dr. Williams testified that the large trash pit near the RV, the bug spray stored in a container that looked like a milk jug, as well as the spoiled food inside the RV, presented "safety concern[s]." Dr. Williams had previously treated children that were injured playing near garbage piles and testified that exposure to fecal matter and spoiled food can cause outbreaks of salmonella, clostridium difficile, or Escherichia coli (E. Coli). Concerning E. Coli, Dr. Williams stated it "can make kids really sick and shut down their kidneys." Dr. Williams also testified that Children were all underweight. The three eldest Children were in the fifth percentile in weight for children their age, and the three youngest Children were in the twenty-fifth percentile in weight for children their age. Based on her review of school records from 2009 to 2017, Dr. Williams concluded that Children had "expressive language delays, so their ability to communicate was delayed compared to other children their age."

{6} After the child abuse trial, a jury convicted Defendants on all six counts, and two months later Defendants pled no contest to the animal cruelty charges. The district courtconsolidated the child abuse and animal cruelty convictions for sentencing. Defendants appeal.

DISCUSSION

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence

{7} Defendants contend that the evidence supporting their convictions for child abuse by endangerment is insufficient. We review sufficiency of evidence claims under a substantial evidence standard of review. See State v. Willyard, 2019-NMCA-058, ¶ 22, 450 P.3d 445. This standard "take[s] into account both the jury's fundamental role as fact[-]finder in our system of justice and the independent responsibility of the courts to ensure that the jury's decisions are supportable by evidence in the record, rather than mere guess or conjecture." State v. Flores, 2010-NMSC-002, ¶ 2, 147 N.M. 542, 226 P.3d 641. The test is "whether substantial evidence of either a direct or circumstantial nature exists to support a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to every element essential to a conviction." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Substantial evidence is "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion[.]" State v. Salgado, 1999-NMSC-008, ¶ 25, 126 N.M. 691, 974 P.2d 661 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Chavez, 2009-NMSC-035, ¶ 11, 146 N.M. 434, 211 P.3d 891 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

{8} "[C]hild abuse by endangerment occurs when an adult knowingly, intentionally, or negligently places a child 'in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health.' " Id. ¶ 15 (quoting Section 30-6-1(D)-(E)); see also UJI 14-612 NMRA (setting out the elements of child abuse not resulting in death or great bodily harm, which includes reckless child endangerment). In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in child endangerment cases, our Supreme Court has held, "to find that the accused acted with the requisite mens rea, the jury . . . must find that [the] defendant's conduct created a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm." Chavez, 2009-NMSC-035, ¶ 22 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "This standard more closely aligns with the legislative purpose that animates the child endangerment statute—to punish conduct that creates a truly significant risk of serious harm to children." Id. We consider the following factors in analyzing whether there was a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm to a child: (1) the gravity of the risk, which places "an individual on notice that his [or her] conduct is perilous and potentially criminal"; (2) whether the defendant's conduct violated a separate criminal statute; and (3) the likelihood of harm "which informs the court of the foreseeability of the risk when evaluating its magnitude." State v. Schaaf, 2013-NMCA-082, ¶ 9, 308 P.3d 160 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). In assessing the degree of risk, we consider the length of time the conditions existed and the amount of supervision of the child. Id. "[T]he state must present specific evidence, including scientific or empirical evidence, connecting the circumstances to a substantial and foreseeable risk of harm[.]" Id.{9} With the exception of...