## Facts

- Vincent Santillanes was prosecuted for child abuse (no death or great bodily injury) after cutting his seven-year-old nephew’s neck with a knife during an altercation.
- The charged offense was under NMSA 1978, § 30-6-1(C), which criminalizes knowingly, intentionally, or negligently causing or permitting a child to be placed in an endangering situation or otherwise abused.
- Santillanes requested a jury instruction defining “negligently” as criminal negligence (failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk constituting a gross deviation from reasonable care).
- The trial court refused the requested instruction and instead instructed on ordinary (civil) negligence (unreasonable risk and lack of ordinary care).
- The jury convicted Santillanes of child abuse under § 30-6-1(C).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding the negligence-instruction issue was not preserved because the requested instruction was not correct.
- The New Mexico Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether § 30-6-1(C) requires criminal negligence or ordinary civil negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether “negligently” in NMSA 1978, § 30-6-1(C) requires proof of criminal negligence rather than ordinary civil negligence to support a felony child-abuse conviction.
2. Whether Santillanes preserved the challenge to the trial court’s use of a civil-negligence jury instruction.
3. Whether use of a civil-negligence instruction, if erroneous, required reversal or was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
4. Whether the clarified interpretation of “negligently” should apply prospectively.

## Decision

- The court held that “negligently” in § 30-6-1(C) means criminal negligence, not ordinary civil negligence.
- The court ruled Santillanes preserved the issue because his tendered instruction adequately alerted the trial court to his legal position, even if not identical to the court’s final formulation.
- The court found the trial court erred by instructing the jury on civil negligence.
- The court affirmed the conviction, holding the instructional error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt on these facts.
- The court applied its criminal-negligence interpretation prospectively (and to cases not yet final on direct review), while leaving Santillanes’s conviction intact.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal statutes are construed, where possible, to include a culpable mental state sufficient to punish morally blameworthy conduct.
- In a felony child-abuse prosecution under § 30-6-1(C), “negligently” requires criminal negligence: failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where the failure constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.
- Ordinary civil negligence (mere failure to exercise ordinary care) is insufficient, by itself, to satisfy the statute’s “negligently” mens rea for felony child abuse.
- Ambiguities in penal statutes are strictly construed in favor of the accused (lenity); a narrowing construction may be adopted to avoid serious constitutional concerns with imposing felony punishment for ordinary carelessness.
- An erroneous mens rea instruction can be harmless if the reviewing court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found the required criminal negligence.

## Conclusion

The New Mexico Supreme Court construed § 30-6-1(C)’s “negligently” to require criminal negligence, held the use of a civil-negligence instruction was error, but affirmed Santillanes’s conviction because the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and applied the clarified standard prospectively.


Santillanes v. State, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358 (N.M. 1993)