 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Yazzie8/12/1993
Opinion
Defendant appeals her conviction for involuntary manslaughter. The sole issue raised on appeal is whether Defendant should have been prosecuted for homicide by vehicle rather than for involuntary manslaughter. We affirm Defendant's conviction for involuntary manslaughter for the reasons set out below.
FACTS
Defendant was involved in an automobile accident in Gallup which resulted in the death of her husband. As a result of the accident, Defendant was charged by criminal information with great bodily injury by vehicle, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-101(B) (Cum.Supp.1992), and homicide by vehicle, in violation of Section 66-8-101(A). The State later amended the criminal information and charged Defendant with a single count of involuntary manslaughter, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-2-3(B) (Repl.Pamp.1984). Defendant moved to dismiss the amended information, contending that she should be charged with the more specific crime of homicide by vehicle. The trial court denied Defendant's motion, and the case proceeded to a bench trial on the following stipulated facts.
1. The Defendant drove a motor vehicle in careless, inattentive, or imprudent manner without due regard for the width, grade, curves, corners, traffic, weather and road conditions and all other attendant circumstances in violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Code;
2. The defendant's act caused the death of James K. Yazzie, who was a passenger in the vehicle driven by the defendant;
3. This happened in new Mexico on or about the 15th day of February, 1992;
4. General criminal intent is not an element of Involuntary Manslaughter[.]
Following the bench trial, the trial court found Defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Defendant appeals from this conviction.
Discussion
Defendant contends that she should have been charged with homicide by vehicle by careless driving instead of involuntary manslaughter. She further contends that, if found guilty of this charge, she would have been guilty of a misdemeanor. Defendant relies on ), cert. quashed, 95 N.M. 426, 622 P.2d 1046 (1981), in support of these contentions. We take this opportunity to clarify Barela.
The defendant in Barela was convicted of homicide by vehicle by reckless driving. Barela sought to have the jury instructed that, if it found him guilty of a killing by unlawful operation of a vehicle, other than while violating NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102 (driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs) or NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-113 (reckless driving), he was guilty of a misdemeanor rather than a felony. . This Court reversed Barela's conviction on the ground that the jury should have been given lesser included offense instructions. Judge Andrews wrote the opinion with Judge Sutin filing a special concurrence and Chief Judge Wood Dissenting. Barela is thus of questionable precedential value. See, e.g., ), cert. denied, 113 N.M. 16, 820 P.2d 1330 (1991);
), cert. quashed, 101 N.M. 362, 683 P.2d 44 (1984).
The question of whether there is an offense of homicide by vehicle by careless driving was posed in the majority opinion in Barela, but was never answered directly. . We now answer that question, and hold that no such crime exists. But cf. ) (state conceded careless and reckless driving the same for double jeopardy pur
Page 1 2 3 New Mexico DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|