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 found by police officers seated in the driver's seat of a parked pickup truck with his wife and four-year-old child. The vehicle was not running, but the Defendant was holding the keys. Officers observed open alcohol containers in the vehicle, and the Defendant exhibited signs of intoxication. After failing field sobriety tests, the Defendant was arrested and charged with DWI and child abuse by endangerment. The charges were based on the potential risk to the child due to the Defendant's intoxicated state and intent to drive (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of San Juan County, Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge.
• Certiorari Denied, December 21, 2011, No. 33,317.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for child abuse by endangerment because the child was not in a moving vehicle and the DWI had not occurred (para 4).
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for child abuse by endangerment based on the Defendant's DWI charge when the Defendant had not yet driven the vehicle (para 1).

Disposition

• The child abuse by endangerment conviction was reversed (para 15).

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring): The court found that previous cases upholding child endangerment convictions involved defendants who were actually driving while intoxicated with a child in the vehicle. The court distinguished this case by noting the Defendant had not yet driven the vehicle, thus had not placed the child in real peril. The court referenced State v. Cotton, where a conviction for child abuse by endangerment was reversed under similar circumstances, emphasizing that the potential for harm was insufficient for a conviction under the child abuse statute. The court concluded that without evidence of actual driving, the Defendant's actions did not rise to the level required by the child abuse statute, and thus, there was insufficient evidence to support the conviction for child abuse by endangerment (paras 8-14).