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, Annette Fuschini, killed her fiancé by driving over him with a truck while intoxicated. The incident occurred after a night of drinking and an argument between the Defendant and the Victim. The State indicted the Defendant for first-degree murder and aggravated DWI, later adding a lesser included charge of second-degree murder. The Defendant requested jury instructions on both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, but only the latter was approved by the district court (paras 4-5).

Procedural History

• State v. Fuschini, 2017-NMCA-084: The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Defendant Annette Fuschini for involuntary manslaughter and aggravated DWI resulting in bodily injury (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Petitioner: Argued that her convictions violate her right to be free from double jeopardy and that the vehicular homicide statute preempts her involuntary manslaughter conviction (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Respondent: Argued that the Legislature intended multiple punishments for involuntary manslaughter and aggravated DWI, and that the aggravated DWI statute is not intended to be a homicide statute (paras 6, 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Defendant's convictions of both aggravated DWI and involuntary manslaughter violate the prohibition against double jeopardy (para 3).
• Whether the vehicular homicide statute preempts the Defendant's involuntary manslaughter conviction (para 3).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court vacated the Defendant’s conviction of aggravated DWI and affirmed the Defendant’s conviction of involuntary manslaughter (paras 22, 27).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court, with Justice Gary L. Clingman writing for a unanimous court, held that convicting the Defendant of both aggravated DWI and involuntary manslaughter for the same death violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The Court found that the Legislature did not intend to punish homicide under the aggravated DWI statute, as evidenced by the statutory definition of "bodily injury" which is not likely to cause death. The Court noted that the jury instructions erroneously included "caused the death of [Victim]" as an element in the aggravated DWI charge, which was contrary to legislative intent and exposed the Defendant to two convictions for the single homicide of the Victim. The Court also addressed the Defendant's preemption claim, rejecting it on the grounds that the instruction on involuntary manslaughter was given at the Defendant's request, and a party cannot profit from its own wrong (paras 9-26).