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 the Defendant and Gilbert Martinez, who lived in Taos, New Mexico, and share a son born in Taos. Following a stipulated order by the Taos County district court in 2007 regarding custody and support, the Defendant moved to Albuquerque while Martinez remained in Taos. Issues arose with the Defendant's compliance with the ordered time-sharing, leading to a new time-sharing plan ordered by the court in 2010. From August 2012 through January 2013, Martinez was unable to exercise his custody rights due to the Defendant's non-compliance with the plan, leading to her indictment for custodial interference in Taos County (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the indictment for custodial interference should be dismissed for improper venue, claiming that the failure to deliver the child to Martinez in Santa Fe, as directed by the court order, meant that Taos County was not the proper venue (para 4).
• State: Contended that Taos County was the proper venue for the trial of the crime of custodial interference, as the place where Martinez, the person with a right of custody, was deprived of that right by the Defendant's actions (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court in Taos County is the proper venue for the trial of the crime of custodial interference, given the circumstances of the case (para 1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the indictment against the Defendant for improper venue and remanded the case with an order to reinstate the indictment in Taos County district court (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Roderick T. Kennedy with Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Timothy L. Garcia concurring, held that the gravamen of the offense of custodial interference is the unlawful deprivation of, or interference with, the right of custody. The Court reasoned that the place where the person with a right of custody was deprived of that right establishes a proper venue for the trial of the crime. Since Martinez resided in and had the right to custody of the child in Taos County, this was sufficient to confer venue on the district court in Taos County. The Court emphasized that deprivation of custodial rights is an essential element of the crime of custodial interference and that the element is satisfied in the county where the result of the defendant’s actions is felt by the person so deprived. The Court concluded that the source of Martinez’s custody right and its deprivation are both essential elements, proof of which is to be found in Taos County, making venue proper in the Taos County district court (paras 10-21).