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 convicted for violating a protective order against his ex-girlfriend by being within 25 yards of her in a public place. Despite being served the order, the Defendant did not read its contents before the incident. At a bar, upon learning of the ex-girlfriend's presence and her request for him to leave, the Defendant refused, resulting in his arrest (paras 2-8).

Procedural History

• District Court: Convicted the Defendant of violating a temporary restraining order.
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed the Defendant's conviction in a memorandum opinion. State v. Ramos, No. 29,514, slip op. at 18 (N.M. Ct. App. Aug. 16, 2011).
• Supreme Court of New Mexico: Granted certiorari to consider the mens rea requirement for violating a protective order (para 11).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that the jury should have been instructed to find that he had “knowingly” violated the protection order for a conviction.
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Contended that no intent instruction—neither general nor specific—was necessary, suggesting treating the violation of an order of protection as a strict liability crime (para 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the crime of violating a protective order requires the State to prove that the Defendant “knowingly” violated the order (para 11).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded for a new trial, holding that the crime of violating a protective order requires a “knowing” violation (para 35).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, led by Justice Bosson, concluded that the Legislature intended for the violation of a protective order to be a "knowing" violation, based on the language and structure of the statute, its legislative policy, and purpose. The Court reasoned that a person must be told that certain otherwise lawful conduct now constitutes a crime, emphasizing the importance of knowledge of the order and the presence of the protected party within the protected zone. The Court found that the general intent instruction given at trial was insufficient and that failure to instruct the jury of a knowing violation constituted reversible error. Chief Justice Maes dissented, arguing that the general intent instruction was sufficient and that imposing a "knowing" requirement is contrary to the national trend of protecting victims and deterring domestic violence (paras 12-34, 37-43).