uniform jury instruction in New Mexico

2024However, Defendant does not dispute that the district court instructed the jury consistent with New Mexico’s uniform jury instruction, which is presumed to be an accurate rendition of the relevant law. [BIC 9] See State v. Mares, 2024-NMSC-002 , ¶ 43, 543 P.3d 1198 (“Our [Supreme Court’s] approval of a uniform jury instruction indicates that [it has] considered that instruction and determined that it appears to accurately state the law.”); State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009 , ¶ 5, 116 N.M. 793 , 867 P.2d 1175 (explaining that our Supreme Court’s adoption of uniform instructions “establishes a pres

2024However, Defendant does not dispute that the district court instructed the jury consistent with New Mexico’s uniform jury instruction, which is presumed to be an accurate rendition of the relevant law. [BIC 9] See State v. Mares, 2024-NMSC-002 , ¶ 43, 543 P.3d 1198 (“Our [Supreme Court’s] approval of a uniform jury instruction indicates that [it has] considered that instruction and determined that it appears to accurately state the law.”); State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009 , ¶ 5, 116 N.M. 793 , 867 P.2d 1175 (explaining that our Supreme Court’s adoption of uniform instructions “establishes a pres

2017See State v. Doe, 1983- NMSC-096, ¶ 8, 100 N.M. 481 , 672 P.2d 654 (“[I]f the jury instructions substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language, then they are sufficient.”), holding modified by Beach, 1985-NMSC-043 , ¶ 12.

2017See State v. Doe, 1983- NMSC-096, ¶ 8, 100 N.M. 481 , 672 P.2d 654 (“[I]f the jury instructions substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language, then they are sufficient.”), holding modified by Beach, 1985-NMSC-043 , ¶ 12.

2024“For fundamental error to exist, the instruction must differ materially from the uniform jury instruction, omit essential elements, or be so confusing and incomprehensible that a court cannot be certain that the jury found the essential elements under the facts of the case.” State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 24 , 143 N.M. 792 , 182 P.3d 775 (text only) (citation omitted). {19} Defendant argues, a juror could have been confused “and misdirected by the erroneous instruction . . . because it was a misstatement of the law.” The instruction on its own is an accurate statement of the law.

2024“For fundamental error to exist, the instruction must differ materially from the uniform jury instruction, omit essential elements, or be so confusing and incomprehensible that a court cannot be certain that the jury found the essential elements under the facts of the case.” State v. Caldwell, 2008-NMCA-049, ¶ 24 , 143 N.M. 792 , 182 P.3d 775 (text only) (citation omitted). {19} Defendant argues, a juror could have been confused “and misdirected by the erroneous instruction . . . because it was a misstatement of the law.” The instruction on its own is an accurate statement of the law.

1999See State v. Acosta, 1997-NMCA-035, ¶ 14 , 123 N.M. 273 , 939 P.2d 1081 (noting that adoption of a uniform jury instruction “ ‘does not preclude this Court from insuring that the rights of individuals are protected’ ” or from altering or abolishing a uniform jury instruction that has not been specifically considered by Supreme Court) (quoting State v. Parish, 118 N.M. 39, 47 , 878 P.2d 988, 996 (1994)). {19} In this case, by using an instruction that did not include the necessary element of materiality, the trial court instructed the jury on law that had been seriously cast into doubt by Gaudi

1999See State v. Acosta, 1997-NMCA-035, ¶ 14 , 123 N.M. 273 , 939 P.2d 1081 (noting that adoption of a uniform jury instruction “ ‘does not preclude this Court from insuring that the rights of individuals are protected’ ” or from altering or abolishing a uniform jury instruction that has not been specifically considered by Supreme Court) (quoting State v. Parish, 118 N.M. 39, 47 , 878 P.2d 988, 996 (1994)). {19} In this case, by using an instruction that did not include the necessary element of materiality, the trial court instructed the jury on law that had been seriously cast into doubt by Gaudi

2024Cf. Hovey, 1986-NMSC-069 , ¶ 13 (holding that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that communications with the jury outside of the defendant’s presence were not prejudicial where the trial court’s answers to the jury’s questions improperly characterized the evidence and limited the scope of the jury’s deliberations). {10} The jury instruction submitted on CSP was based on the UJI and set out the elements of the offense, and the jury was instructed that it had to find each element in order to convict. [RP 213] See UJI 14-956A NMRA; see also State v. Ortega, 2014- NMSC-017, ¶ 32, 327 P.3d

2024Cf. Hovey, 1986-NMSC-069 , ¶ 13 (holding that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that communications with the jury outside of the defendant’s presence were not prejudicial where the trial court’s answers to the jury’s questions improperly characterized the evidence and limited the scope of the jury’s deliberations). {10} The jury instruction submitted on CSP was based on the UJI and set out the elements of the offense, and the jury was instructed that it had to find each element in order to convict. [RP 213] See UJI 14-956A NMRA; see also State v. Ortega, 2014- NMSC-017, ¶ 32, 327 P.3d

2017See State v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-001 , 6 ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 6 , 15 P.3d 1233 (disapproving of a uniform jury instruction and its 7 commentary because it was a “misstatement of [the] law”), holding limited on other 8 grounds by State v. Sims, 2010-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 31-32 , 148 N.M. 330 , 236 P.2d 642 . 9 The passage in the commentary relied on by the McCrary Court is “doubtful 10 authority” that objective knowledge is sufficient for second-degree murder.

2017See State v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-001 , 6 ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 6 , 15 P.3d 1233 (disapproving of a uniform jury instruction and its 7 commentary because it was a “misstatement of [the] law”), holding limited on other 8 grounds by State v. Sims, 2010-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 31-32 , 148 N.M. 330 , 236 P.2d 642 . 9 The passage in the commentary relied on by the McCrary Court is “doubtful 10 authority” that objective knowledge is sufficient for second-degree murder.

2020Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 32 , 327 P.3d 1076 (stating that the “[u]niform jury instructions are presumed to be correct”); Jackson v. State, 1983-NMSC-098 , ¶ 5, 100 N.M. 487 , 672 P.2d 660 (stating that when a uniform jury instruction is given for the elements of a crime, generally that instruction must be used without substantive modification).

2018See State v. Ortega, 2014-NMSC-017, ¶ 32 , 327 P.3d 1076 17 (“Uniform jury instructions are presumed to be correct.”); Jackson v. State, 1983- 18 NMSC-098, ¶ 5, 100 N.M. 487 , 672 P.2d 660 (“When a uniform jury instruction is 3 1 provided for the elements of a crime, generally that instruction must be used without 2 substantive modification.”). 3 {6} Defendant contends that the uniform instructions should have been modified, 4 to incorporate the absence of entrapment in the elements instructions. [MIO 6-8] 5 However, the entrapment defense does not effectively alter the elements or create an 6

2025See State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {8} The uniform jury instruction for aggravated stalking sets out the essential element for this theory as follows: “At the time of the offense: (the defendant) knowingly violated a permanent or temporary order of protection issued by a court (and the victim did not also violate the court order).” UJI 14-333(2).

2025See State v. Benally, 2001-NMSC-033, ¶ 12 , 131 N.M. 258 , 34 P.3d 1134 . {8} The uniform jury instruction for aggravated stalking sets out the essential element for this theory as follows: “At the time of the offense: (the defendant) knowingly violated a permanent or temporary order of protection issued by a court (and the victim did not also violate the court order).” UJI 14-333(2).

2009See Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 (holding that a 11 defendant may offer a modified uniform jury instruction on a lesser-included offense 12 and, “[i]f the court believes no modification is appropriate, the court should instruct 13 in the exact language of the uniform jury instruction”); Diaz, 121 N.M. at 33 , 908 P.2d 14 at 263 (holding that “an instruction issue had been properly preserved by tender of a 15 uniform jury instruction although the specifically tendered instruction was incorrect”; 16 Hill, 2001 -NMCA-094, ¶ 16 (stating that it is reversible error to not instruct o

2009See Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 (holding that a 11 defendant may offer a modified uniform jury instruction on a lesser-included offense 12 and, “[i]f the court believes no modification is appropriate, the court should instruct 13 in the exact language of the uniform jury instruction”); Diaz, 121 N.M. at 33 , 908 P.2d 14 at 263 (holding that “an instruction issue had been properly preserved by tender of a 15 uniform jury instruction although the specifically tendered instruction was incorrect”; 16 Hill, 2001 -NMCA-094, ¶ 16 (stating that it is reversible error to not instruct o

1994The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court could not grant a new trial on the basis that it disagrees with a uniform jury instruction, citing to State v. Chavez, 101 N.M. 136, 139 , 679 P.2d 804, 807 (1984) (Chavez II).

1994The Court of Appeals determined that the trial court could not grant a new trial on the basis that it disagrees with a uniform jury instruction, citing to State v. Chavez, 101 N.M. 136, 139 , 679 P.2d 804, 807 (1984) (Chavez II).

1997State v. Orosco, 113 N.M. 780, 784 , 833 P.2d 1146, 1150 (1992); State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 661-62 , 808 P.2d 624, 631-32 (1991). (9) While the committee commentary to the uniform jury instruction for battery, Rule 14r-320 NMRA 1997, states that “[t]he statutory element of unlawfulness is covered by the language of this instruction requiring that the defendant act in a rude, insolent or angry manner,” this proposition does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons stated above.

1997State v. Orosco, 113 N.M. 780, 784 , 833 P.2d 1146, 1150 (1992); State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 661-62 , 808 P.2d 624, 631-32 (1991). (9) While the committee commentary to the uniform jury instruction for battery, Rule 14r-320 NMRA 1997, states that “[t]he statutory element of unlawfulness is covered by the language of this instruction requiring that the defendant act in a rude, insolent or angry manner,” this proposition does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons stated above.

2023See State v. McGuire, 1990-NMSC-067 , ¶ 31, 110 N.M. 304 , 795 P.2d 996 10 (noting that “the uniform jury instruction on this topic provides that no instruction 11 shall be given”).

2023See State v. McGuire, 1990-NMSC-067 , ¶ 31, 110 N.M. 304 , 795 P.2d 996 10 (noting that “the uniform jury instruction on this topic provides that no instruction 11 shall be given”).

2022State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 ; see also State v. Ocon, 2021-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 7-8 , 493 P.3d 448 (providing that fundamental error review is a two-step process: first, we determine whether error occurred; and second, we determine whether any such error was fundamental). {3} Consistent with the uniform jury instruction applicable when alternative means of “force or coercion” are alleged,1 UJI 14-944 NMRA, the jury in this case was instructed on the elements of CSP as follows: 1. [D]efendant caused [Victim] to engage in sexual intercourse, or caused the insertion,

2022“Jury instructions cause confusion or misdirection when, through omission or misstatement, they do not provide an accurate rendition of the essential elements of a crime.” Ocon, 2021-NMCA-032, ¶ 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {9} Defendant argues that fundamental error occurred because “the absence of any explanatory instruction related to the limits of a ‘meaningful challenge to authority’ was akin to a missing element.” We disagree.

2017See State v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-001 , 6 ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 6 , 15 P.3d 1233 (disapproving of a uniform jury instruction and its 7 commentary because it was a “misstatement of [the] law”), holding limited on other 8 grounds by State v. Sims, 2010-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 31-32 , 148 N.M. 330 , 236 P.2d 642 . 9 The passage in the commentary relied on by the McCrary Court is “doubtful 10 authority” that objective knowledge is sufficient for second-degree murder.

2017See State v. Johnson, 2001-NMSC-001 , 6 ¶ 16, 130 N.M. 6 , 15 P.3d 1233 (disapproving of a uniform jury instruction and its 7 commentary because it was a “misstatement of [the] law”), holding limited on other 8 grounds by State v. Sims, 2010-NMSC-027, ¶¶ 31-32 , 148 N.M. 330 , 236 P.2d 642 . 9 The passage in the commentary relied on by the McCrary Court is “doubtful 10 authority” that objective knowledge is sufficient for second-degree murder.

2007Id. at 501-03 , 745 P.2d at 1149-51 (Ransom, J., specially concurring). {3} Subsequent to Reese, the Supreme Court promulgated a uniform jury instruction that addresses the defendant’s ignorance or mistake as to the victim’s status as a peace officer.

2007Id. at 501-03 , 745 P.2d at 1149-51 (Ransom, J., specially concurring). {3} Subsequent to Reese, the Supreme Court promulgated a uniform jury instruction that addresses the defendant’s ignorance or mistake as to the victim’s status as a peace officer.

1997State v. Orosco, 113 N.M. 780, 784 , 833 P.2d 1146, 1150 (1992); State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 661-62 , 808 P.2d 624, 631-32 (1991). (9) While the committee commentary to the uniform jury instruction for battery, Rule 14r-320 NMRA 1997, states that “[t]he statutory element of unlawfulness is covered by the language of this instruction requiring that the defendant act in a rude, insolent or angry manner,” this proposition does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons stated above.

1997State v. Orosco, 113 N.M. 780, 784 , 833 P.2d 1146, 1150 (1992); State v. Osborne, 111 N.M. 654, 661-62 , 808 P.2d 624, 631-32 (1991). (9) While the committee commentary to the uniform jury instruction for battery, Rule 14r-320 NMRA 1997, states that “[t]he statutory element of unlawfulness is covered by the language of this instruction requiring that the defendant act in a rude, insolent or angry manner,” this proposition does not withstand scrutiny for the reasons stated above.

1994Brooks, 116 N.M. at 318 , 862 P.2d at 66 (Bivins, J., dissenting).

1994Brooks, 116 N.M. at 318 , 862 P.2d at 66 (Bivins, J., dissenting).

1994State v. Martin, 90 N.M. 524, 528 , 565 P.2d 1041, 1045 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 636 , 567 P.2d 485 (1977).

1994State v. Martin, 90 N.M. 524, 528 , 565 P.2d 1041, 1045 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 90 N.M. 636 , 567 P.2d 485 (1977).

2011The Court went on to parse out what differentiated a “serious occurrence” from a “minor or theoretical danger.” Looking to language derived from the uniform jury instruction for Section 30-6-1, the Court focused on the portion of the instruction directing the jury to “find that ‘defendant’s conduct created a substantial and foreseeable risk’ of harm.” Chavez, 2009-NMSC-035, ¶ 22 , 146 N.M. 434 , 211 P.3d 891 (quoting UJI 14-604 NMRA).

2011The Court went on to parse out what differentiated a “serious occurrence” from a “minor or theoretical danger.” Looking to language derived from the uniform jury instruction for Section 30-6-1, the Court focused on the portion of the instruction directing the jury to “find that ‘defendant’s conduct created a substantial and foreseeable risk’ of harm.” Chavez, 2009-NMSC-035, ¶ 22 , 146 N.M. 434 , 211 P.3d 891 (quoting UJI 14-604 NMRA).

2019Id. {11} In reviewing the defendant’s fundamental error claim, we explained that where “the evidentiary basis for the instruction has been laid, UJI 14-5190 informs jurors of what is reasonable under the third prong of [UJI 14-5171 NMRA, the uniform jury instruction on self-defense].” Anderson, 2016-NMCA-007, ¶ 14 .

2018“An error is fundamental 12 when it goes to the foundation or basis of a defendant’s rights.” State v. Anderson, 13 2016-NMCA-007, ¶ 8 , 364 P.3d 306 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 14 This Court “will not uphold a conviction if an error implicated a fundamental 15 unfairness within the system that would undermine judicial integrity if left 16 unchecked.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted omitted). 17 {27} “For fundamental error to exist, the instruction given must differ materially 18 from the uniform jury instruction, omit essential elements, or be so confus

2025See State v. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 15 , 147 N.M. 747 , 228 P.3d 1167 (citing the uniform jury instruction for the definition of “great bodily harm” and holding that “[a]lthough a punch to the face is the type of force that may cause bodily injury, it is not the type of force that creates a high probability of death, results in serious disfigurement, results in loss of any member or organ of the body, or results in permanent prolonged impairment of the use of any member or organ of the body”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 4, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (noting that “deadly force may no

2025See State v. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, ¶ 15 , 147 N.M. 747 , 228 P.3d 1167 (citing the uniform jury instruction for the definition of “great bodily harm” and holding that “[a]lthough a punch to the face is the type of force that may cause bodily injury, it is not the type of force that creates a high probability of death, results in serious disfigurement, results in loss of any member or organ of the body, or results in permanent prolonged impairment of the use of any member or organ of the body”); State v. Duarte, 1996-NMCA-038 , ¶ 4, 121 N.M. 553 , 915 P.2d 309 (noting that “deadly force may no

2022State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 ; see also State v. Ocon, 2021-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 7-8 , 493 P.3d 448 (providing that fundamental error review is a two-step process: first, we determine whether error occurred; and second, we determine whether any such error was fundamental). {3} Consistent with the uniform jury instruction applicable when alternative means of “force or coercion” are alleged,1 UJI 14-944 NMRA, the jury in this case was instructed on the elements of CSP as follows: 1. [D]efendant caused [Victim] to engage in sexual intercourse, or caused the insertion,

2022State v. Barber, 2004-NMSC-019, ¶ 8 , 135 N.M. 621 , 92 P.3d 633 ; see also State v. Ocon, 2021-NMCA-032, ¶¶ 7-8 , 493 P.3d 448 (providing that fundamental error review is a two-step process: first, we determine whether error occurred; and second, we determine whether any such error was fundamental). {3} Consistent with the uniform jury instruction applicable when alternative means of “force or coercion” are alleged,1 UJI 14-944 NMRA, the jury in this case was instructed on the elements of CSP as follows: 1. [D]efendant caused [Victim] to engage in sexual intercourse, or caused the insertion,

2025“For fundamental error to exist, the instruction given must differ materially from the uniform jury instruction, omit essential elements, or be so confusing and incomprehensible that a court cannot be certain that the jury found the essential elements under the facts of the case.” State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMSC-004 , ¶ 31, 434 P.3d 297 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019See State v. Candelaria, 2019-NMSC-004 , ¶ 35, 434 P.3d 297 (holding the district court did not commit error when it failed to give a no-retreat instruction in the absence of an evidentiary basis for the instruction).

2025See UJI 13-1417. {5} BMW opposed the vicinity language and argued that Jose “doesn’t get to be injured as both a user and a bystander.” The district court adopted the vicinity language proposed by Plaintiffs for each injury instruction stating, “[T]here is evidence to support the fact that [Jose] was both a user; and then when he left the vehicle at some point, he was a bystander or a pedestrian.” {6} Jury instructions that track the language of the uniform jury instruction are “presumptively valid.” State v. Lucero, 2017-NMSC-008, ¶ 30 , 389 P.3d 1039 .

2024“When a uniform jury instruction is provided for the elements of a crime, generally that instruction must be used without substantive modification.” Lucero, 2017-NMSC-008, ¶ 30 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {9} The jury instruction used at trial on the charge of Intentional Child Abuse reads, For you to find Juan Lerma guilty of intentional child abuse resulting in death of a child under twelve (12) years of age, as charged in Count 1, the State must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime: 1.

2010In this regard, Defendant argues that the district court should have modified 4 the uniform jury instruction, citing State v. Traeger, 2001-NMSC-022, ¶ 24 , 130 N.M. 5 618, 29 P.3d 518 (holding that it was not error for the court to alter the uniform jury 6 instruction to specify the object or instrument to avoid confusion of the jury).

2010In this regard, Defendant argues that the district court should have modified 4 the uniform jury instruction, citing State v. Traeger, 2001-NMSC-022, ¶ 24 , 130 N.M. 5 618, 29 P.3d 518 (holding that it was not error for the court to alter the uniform jury 6 instruction to specify the object or instrument to avoid confusion of the jury).

2009See Gallegos, 113 N.M. at 341 , 825 P.2d at 1251 (holding that a 11 defendant may offer a modified uniform jury instruction on a lesser-included offense 12 and, “[i]f the court believes no modification is appropriate, the court should instruct 13 in the exact language of the uniform jury instruction”); Diaz, 121 N.M. at 33 , 908 P.2d 14 at 263 (holding that “an instruction issue had been properly preserved by tender of a 15 uniform jury instruction although the specifically tendered instruction was incorrect”; 16 Hill, 2001 -NMCA-094, ¶ 16 (stating that it is reversible error to not instruct o

2001See State v. Diaz, 121 N.M. 28, 33 , 908 P.2d 258, 263 (Ct.App.1995) (“[A]n instruction issue had been properly preserved by tender of a uniform jury instruction although the specifically tendered instruction was incorrect.”).