AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a child, referred to as Jesus B. (Child), who was adjudicated as a delinquent for committing disorderly conduct. The incident leading to this adjudication occurred when the Child, along with another, was found on the roof of a building in downtown Artesia, shooting plastic ammunition from a plastic gun, which resulted in noise described as little bangs or pellets hitting the metal roof and ground. The police were called to the scene following a report of children throwing rocks. Upon arrival, the police officer, Sergeant Ricardo Huerta, investigated and subsequently cited the Child for firing the BB gun within city limits and trespassing (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Eddy County, Lisa B. Riley, District Judge: The Child was adjudicated as a delinquent child based on the finding of committing disorderly conduct in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-20-1(B) (1967), which was later analyzed under Section 30-20-1(A) during the adjudicatory hearing (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Child-Appellant: Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of disorderly conduct and contended that his statements to the police officer were improperly admitted (para 1).
• State of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Child's adjudication as a delinquent for committing disorderly conduct under NMSA 1978, Section 30-20-1(B) (1967), analyzed as a violation of Section 30-20-1(A) (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the judgment that the Child violated Section 30-20-1(B) and the adjudication that he was a delinquent child based on that violation (para 12).

Reasons

• Per Stephen G. French, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Judge, and Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, concurring):
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support the Child's disorderly conduct conviction. It reasoned that disorderly conduct requires conduct that tends to disturb the peace, which includes acts of violence, acts likely to incite violence, or acts that disturb the peace and tranquility of the community. The court found no evidence that the noise made by the Child's actions was especially loud or that the act of shooting plastic BBs or pellets on a rooftop in a downtown commercial district disturbed the peace and tranquility of the community. The court emphasized that the specific circumstances of the accused’s behavior, including the location and the nature of the conduct, are relevant to determining whether an act tends to disturb the peace. The court concluded that the Child's actions did not clearly fall within the statutory definition of disorderly conduct as they were not of the kind that would tend to disturb the peace (paras 4-12).