State v. Stephenson

• Decision Date: 26 September 2016
• Docket Number: NO. S–1–SC–35035,S–1–SC–35035
• Citation: 389 P.3d 272
• Parties: STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–petitioner, v. Jennifer STEPHENSON, Defendant–respondent.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

389 P.3d 272

STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff–petitioner,

v.Jennifer STEPHENSON, Defendant–respondent.

NO. S–1–SC–35035

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Filing Date: September 26, 2016

Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General, Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General, Maris Veidemanis, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.

Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender, B. Douglas Wood, III, Assistant Appellate Defender, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent.

OPINION

CHÁVEZ, Justice.

{1} Defendant Jennifer Stephenson placed her two-year-old son Isaiah in his room at bedtime and locked the door for the night. Isaiah's father heard Isaiah whimpering the next morning and found him with his legs pinned between a dresser and a crossbar on Isaiah's bed. Isaiah developed a painful condition described as compartment syndrome

, which required an aggressive surgery to correct. A jury convicted Defendant of one count of abandonment of a child resulting in great bodily harm, a second-degree felony, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30–6–1(B) (2009), after being unable to find that Defendant committed child abuse by failing to act for Isaiah's welfare and safety, contrary to Section 30–6–1(D). The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that her conduct did not fall within the meaning of "leaving or abandoning" because she did not leave Isaiah with the intent not to return. State v. Stephenson , 2015–NMCA–038, ¶¶ 23, 25, 346 P.3d 409. We granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals' definition of "leaving or abandoning" was correct and whether the evidence was sufficient as a matter of law to support the conviction. 2015–NMCERT–001, 350 P.3d 92.

{2} We conclude that the Legislature intended the crime of abandonment of a child under Section 30–6–1(B) to include the situations (1) where a parent intentionally leaves a child with the intent not to return, whereby the child may or does suffer neglect, which would constitute "abandoning"; and (2) where a parent or other caregiver intentionally departs from a child, leaving the child under circumstances whereby the child may or does suffer neglect, which would constitute "leaving." Thus, we interpret Section 30–6–1(B) differently than the Court of Appeals. The dissent offers a third interpretation of Section 30–6–1(B) —as causing a child to remain in some specified condition—which we interpret to be consistent only with the crime of permitting child abuse by failing to act for the child's safety, a crime that the jury rejected. Perhaps the most important lesson from this case is that the Legislature must clarify its intent with respect to the crime of child abandonment. Nevertheless, we agree with the Court of Appeals that Defendant could not be found guilty of abandoning Isaiah because there is no evidence that Defendant intentionally left Isaiah with the intent not to return. We also conclude that there was not sufficient evidence to support the finding that Defendant intentionally departed from Isaiah, leaving him under circumstances where Isaiah might have or did suffer neglect—where his well-being was at risk of harm. We therefore reverse Defendant's conviction and remand for an entry of a judgment of acquittal.

BACKGROUND

{3} Anthony Apodaca, Isaiah's father, worked the late night shift until 1:30 a.m. the morning of January 28, 2010. Anthony arrived at Defendant's apartment at approximately 2:00 a.m., and because the door was locked, he knocked to awaken Defendant to let him into the apartment. Anthony was hungry, so he asked Defendant to go to McDonald's to get him some food. Meanwhile Anthony went into his daughter Neveah's room and found her awake on the floor outside her crib, so he picked her up to feed her a bottle of milk. He did not check on Isaiah, his son, because he assumed that Isaiah was asleep and Anthony did not want to disturb him. Isaiah had been locked in his room for the night.

{4} After Defendant returned with food from McDonald's, Anthony shared his food with Neveah before putting her back to sleep in her crib. Anthony asked Defendant to check on Isaiah. Defendant told Anthony that Isaiah was fine, but it is not clear whether she actually checked on him, although in her statement to the police, Defendant said that Isaiah was asleep when she checked on him at 2:30 a.m. Anthony did not check on Isaiah that night. Both parents went to sleep and did not leave the apartment after Defendant returned from McDonald's. There is no evidence that the parents heard Isaiah crying or screaming when they went to bed or in the middle of the night. Anthony testified that he woke up in the middle of the night and did not hear Isaiah crying or screaming.

{5} Anthony woke up the next morning around 7:00 a.m. and heard Isaiah whimpering, so he unlocked Isaiah's bedroom door and saw Isaiah pinned between a dresser and a crossbar from his toddler bed. Anthony could tell that Isaiah's legs were swollen and reddish purple and that he was in pain. Defendant took Isaiah to the hospital after picking up her father, Calvin Stephenson, on the way to the hospital. Calvin testified that Isaiah whimpered but did not cry on the way to the hospital.

{6} Dr. Meher Best was the first doctor to see Isaiah at the hospital and he could immediately tell that Isaiah was in pain. Isaiah's lower extremities were unusually hard with strange marks and lesions that later proved to be pressure lesions from being pinned for a prolonged time. Isaiah did not have bruises or broken bones which Dr. Best would have expected to see if a toddler suffered a crush injury from a dresser. By the time Isaiah was in the emergency room, he was "inconsolable."

{7} Isaiah was diagnosed with compartment syndrome

of both legs as a result of being pinned between the dresser and the crossbar on his toddler bed. There is no evidence as to how the dresser actually fell on Isaiah, although Anthony testified that Isaiah liked to climb on furniture.

{8} Compartment syndrome

usually results from a crush injury that can be limb- or even life-threatening. Several medical doctors testified that compartment syndrome takes hours to develop. The orthopedic surgeon who treated Isaiah testified that he thought Isaiah would have had to have been trapped for at least "eight to twelve hours and, more likely, twenty-four hours." The pediatric intensive care doctor testified that she thought Isaiah would have been trapped for "a minimum of six to twelve hours." The doctors agreed that it was extremely rare to see compartment syndrome in a child.

{9} Isaiah underwent a fasciotomy

, which is a surgery performed by slicing open the legs, removing the dead muscle tissue, and leaving the swollen muscles exposed outside of the skin until the muscles recede back into their respective compartments. Once the muscles recede, skin grafts are required to replace the skin that was removed during the fasciotomy. Isaiah needed a walker to help him walk for some time and his lower legs will be disfigured for the rest of his life.

{10} Dr. Best reported Defendant to the authorities for potential child abuse because although Defendant was polite, Dr. Best thought Defendant's reaction to her child being in such serious condition was too casual. Defendant was indicted for negligently causing, or in the alternative, negligently permitting Isaiah to be placed in a situation which endangered his life or health, when Defendant knew or should have known of the danger involved and acted with reckless disregard for Isaiah's safety, in violation of Section 30–6–1(D).

{11} At trial the State abandoned the count for negligently causing child abuse and pursued the count for negligently permitting child abuse. The district court instructed the jury that if it had a reasonable doubt as to whether Defendant committed the crime of negligently permitting child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, then the jury should consider the crime of abandonment resulting in great bodily harm. The jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty of abandonment.

DISCUSSION

{12} The question we must address is whether the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant of abandonment resulting in great bodily harm. The answer to this question depends on the scope intended by the Legislature for the crime of abandonment. State v. Rowell , 1995–NMSC–079, ¶ 8, 121 N.M. 111, 908 P.2d 1379 ("The main goal of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature."). "Questions of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo...." State v. Tafoya , 2012–NMSC–030, ¶ 11, 285 P.3d 604. A criminal statute must be strictly construed and "may not be applied beyond its intended scope [for] it is a fundamental rule of constitutional law that crimes must be defined with appropriate definiteness." State v. Chavez , 2009–NMSC–035, ¶ 10, 146 N.M. 434, 211 P.3d 891 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Therefore, we will not read a criminal statute to apply to particular conduct "unless the legislative proscription is plain." State v. Bybee , 1989–NMCA–071, ¶ 12, 109 N.M. 44, 781 P.2d 316 (citing United States v. Scharton , 285 U.S. 518, 52 S.Ct. 416, 76 L.Ed. 917 (1932) ). "We are generally unwilling to construe one provision of a statute in a manner that would make other provisions null or superfluous." State v. Rivera , 2004–NMSC–001, ¶ 18, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939.

{13} Section 30–6–1(B) defines "abandonment" as a "parent, guardian or custodian of a child intentionally leaving or abandoning the child under circumstances whereby the child may or does suffer neglect." Neglect means that a child is without proper parental care and control necessary for the child's well-being, including the child's health, education, or subsistence. Section 30–6–1(A)(2). The statute does not define "leaving or abandoning." See § 30–6–1. Thus, to determine whether Defendant's conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, we must first examine the scope...