13 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2009–2023 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Consaulgreen2 sentences2023The Court held that “recklessness require[s a defendant] to consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the [defendant]’s situation.” Id. (citing Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(c) (West 2021) (defining “recklessly”)). “[A]ccidental conduct cannot support a conviction for [reckless] child abuse.” State v. Arrendondo, 2012- NMSC-013, ¶ 26, 278 P.3d 517 . 2022The jury instructions specified that “reckless disregard” requires that Defendant’s “conduct was more than merely negligent or careless,” and that Defendant “caused a substantial and unjustifiable risk of serious harm” to A.E., which means a law-abiding person would have behaved differently out of concern for the safety or health of [A.E.]” See State v. Consaul, 2014-NMSC-030, ¶ 37 , 332 P.3d 850 (clarifying that “criminally negligent child abuse” should be labelled as “reckless child abuse,” which generally requires the actor to “consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk of s | 2 | 7 |
State v. Schoonmakergreen2 sentences2014See Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC-010,f43 (stating that the defendant is deemed to have acted negligently “when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct” and explaining that “[t]he risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitte 2013See Schoonmaker, 2008-NMSC-010, ¶ 43 (stating that the defendant is deemed to have acted negligently “when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct” and explaining that “[t]he risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omit | 2 | 3 |
Keishawn Lomant Whitfield v. Commonwealth of Virginiagreen2 sentences2021See Whitfield, 702 S.E.2d at 595 (stating that the defendant “did not use the van logbook specifically designed to ensure that this kind of tragedy would never occur”). {14} In addition, the State showed that Defendants failed to follow CYFD policies on the day in question despite having been reprimanded for violating CYFD policies in the past. 3 In our view, Defendants’ repeated failure to follow CYFD safety policies despite trainings and past reprimands demonstrates a “conscious[] disregard” for the safety and health of Victims amounting to “a gross deviation from the standard of conduct tha 2021See Whitfield, 702 S.E.2d at 595 (stating that the defendant “did not use the van logbook specifically designed to ensure that this kind of tragedy would never occur”). {14} In addition, the State showed that Defendants failed to follow CYFD policies on the day in question despite having been reprimanded for violating CYFD policies in the past. 3 In our view, Defendants’ repeated failure to follow CYFD safety policies despite trainings and past reprimands demonstrates a “conscious[] disregard” for the safety and health of Victims amounting to “a gross deviation from the standard of conduct tha | 2 | 2 |
State v. Largogreen2 sentences2013See State v. Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶ 31 , 278 P.3d 532 . 2013See State v. Largo, 2012-NMSC-015, ¶ 31 , 278 P.3d 532 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Chavez
green
2 sentences2013And it requires the risk to be “of such a nature and degree that the [defendant’s] failure to perceive it, considering the nature . . . of [the defendant’s] conduct and the circumstances known to [the defendant], involves a gross deviation from the standard of care.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2013And it requires the risk to be “of such a nature and degree that the [defendant’s] failure to perceive it, considering the nature . . . of [the defendant’s] conduct and the circumstances known to [the defendant], involves a gross deviation from the standard of care.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). | 4 | 2013–2022 |
State v. Massengill
green
2 sentences2013See Webb, 2013-NMCA- 027, ¶ 22 (“The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, . , . involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 45 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (“Our Supreme Court has determined that the child abuse statute contains no indication that the [Legislature intended felony punishment to attach to ordinary negligent conduct.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 2013See Webb, 2013-NMCA- 027, ¶ 22 (“The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it, . , . involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); State v. Massengill, 2003-NMCA-024, ¶ 45 , 133 N.M. 263 , 62 P.3d 354 (“Our Supreme Court has determined that the child abuse statute contains no indication that the [Legislature intended felony punishment to attach to ordinary negligent conduct.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). | 3 | 2013–2013 |
Matter of Adoption of Doe
green
2 sentences2021“No specific intent to disregard [one’s] obligations is involved” in the concept of conscious disregard; “[t]he only ‘intent’ involved is . . . purposely engaging in conduct which implies a conscious disregard of [one’s] obligations.” In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 10, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).2 {10} Having rejected the argument that criminal liability under the reckless child abuse statute requires proof that a defendant has knowledge of his or her act, we next address Defendants’ contention that the State failed to prove by suffic 2021“No specific intent to disregard [one’s] obligations is involved” in the concept of conscious disregard; “[t]he only ‘intent’ involved is . . . purposely engaging in conduct which implies a conscious disregard of [one’s] obligations.” In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 10, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).2 {10} Having rejected the argument that criminal liability under the reckless child abuse statute requires proof that a defendant has knowledge of his or her act, we next address Defendants’ contention that the State failed to prove by suffic | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Webb
green
2 sentences2014State v. Webb, 2013-NMCA-027, ¶ 22 , 296 P.3d 1247 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002 , 300 P.3d 132 ; see UJI 14-133 NMRA (defining criminal negligence). 2013State v. Webb, 2013-NMCA-027, ¶ 22 , 296 P.3d 1247 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted), cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002 , 300 P.3d 132 ; see UJI 14-133 NMRA (defining criminal negligence). | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Arrendondo
green
1 sentence2023The Court held that “recklessness require[s a defendant] to consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk of such a nature and degree that its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the [defendant]’s situation.” Id. (citing Model Penal Code § 2.02(2)(c) (West 2021) (defining “recklessly”)). “[A]ccidental conduct cannot support a conviction for [reckless] child abuse.” State v. Arrendondo, 2012- NMSC-013, ¶ 26, 278 P.3d 517 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Ramirez
green
1 sentence2021“No specific intent to disregard [one’s] obligations is involved” in the concept of conscious disregard; “[t]he only ‘intent’ involved is . . . purposely engaging in conduct which implies a conscious disregard of [one’s] obligations.” In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024 , ¶ 10, 100 N.M. 764 , 676 P.2d 1329 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 2 2Reckless child abuse does not require “the jury to find that [a defendant] intended to harm the children or that [a defendant] actually physically harmed the children.” State v. Ramirez, 2018-NMSC-003, ¶ 17 , 409 P.3d 902 (emphasis added). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.