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 Defendant was charged with violating an order of protection by contacting her ten-month-old child and the child's father, despite the order prohibiting such contact. The violation occurred on or about October 10, 2014. The Defendant's actions were allegedly in response to receiving pictures from the child's father showing the child looking severely ill and unresponsive, prompting her to go care for the child who needed to be breastfed (para 2, 5).

Procedural History

• Metropolitan Court: Convicted the Defendant of violating an order of protection (para 2).
• District Court of Bernalillo County: Affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the metropolitan court committed fundamental error by not instructing the jury on duress and contended that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The Defendant believed her actions were justified due to the immediate need to care for her ill child (paras 4-5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the metropolitan court committed fundamental error by not instructing the jury on duress.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the Defendant's conviction for violating the order of protection.

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, which had affirmed the metropolitan court's conviction of the Defendant for violating an order of protection (para 15).

Reasons

• Per Bogardus, J. (Hanisee, C.J., and Medina, J., concurring):
  The Court found no fundamental error in the metropolitan court's failure to instruct the jury on duress, as the Defendant did not request such an instruction. The Court applied the fundamental error doctrine and concluded that the jury instructions given did not misdirect or confuse the jury regarding the law on violating an order of protection. The defense of duress was not deemed essential for a conviction of violating an order of protection (paras 4-8).
  Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court held that a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the father did not cause the Defendant to violate the order of protection. The Court considered the testimony of the father, corroborated by video footage, and disregarded the Defendant's contradictory testimony and other evidence she presented to argue that the father caused her to violate the order. The Court also found that findings from a separate custody proceeding were not binding in the criminal trial (paras 9-14).