{ "id": 4362864, "name": "STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WYATT B., Child-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wyatt B.", "decision_date": "2015-10-13", "docket_number": "No. 35,513; Docket No. 33,297", "first_page": "747", "last_page": "759", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2015-NMCA-110" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2005-NMCA-045", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 929193 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/137/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "2011-NMCA-042", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4250082 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/149/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "1999-NMCA-069", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 257617 ], "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 1, 28" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 16-17" }, { "page": "\u00b6 17" }, { "page": "\u00b6 22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/127/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "1996-NMSC-073", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 322297 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/122/0724-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMCA-060", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 929130 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/137/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "2010-NMSC-011", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4245851 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 11" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/147/0747-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 P.3d 110", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-008", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4188256 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 25" }, { "page": "\u00b6 36" }, { "page": "\u00b6 57" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/1/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 P.3d 902", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMCA-013", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4077542 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 16" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/5/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 N.M. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1590342 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/109/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "1989-NMCA-086", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 19" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "117 N.M. 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1552744 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/117/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "1994-NMCA-061", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" }, { "page": "\u00b6 14" }, { "page": "\u00b6 14" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 N.M. 771", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1598939 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/105/0771-01" ] }, { "cite": "1987-NMCA-052", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 N.M. 263", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1573210 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/94/0263-01" ] }, { "cite": "1980-NMCA-042", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 22-23" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 20-21" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 P.3d 988", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMCERT-012", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCERT", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "340 P.3d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2015-NMCA-002", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4241548 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/7/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 N.M. 789", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1590280 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/109/0789-01" ] }, { "cite": "1990-NMSC-046", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1999-NMSC-018", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 257627 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 14" }, { "page": "\u00b6 18" }, { "page": "\u00b6 21" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 18, 20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/127/0207-01" ] }, { "cite": "2000-NMSC-038", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1217139 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/129/0806-01" ] }, { "cite": "2011-NMCA-105", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4251180 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/150/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 P.3d 1072", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2013-NMCA-032", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4191560 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/3/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "2002-NMSC-023", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 260742 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 6" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/132/0592-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMCA-022", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 2543499 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/139/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "2015-NMSC-019", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4362901 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/8/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 P.3d 637", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-031", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4190097 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 27" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "384 U.S. 436", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12046400 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "467-68" }, { "page": "467" }, { "page": "476" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/384/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "2001-NMSC-030", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 183136 ], "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 48" }, { "page": "\u00b6 1" }, { "page": "\u00b6 1" }, { "page": "\u00b6 38" }, { "page": "\u00b6 48" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/131/0001-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1376, "char_count": 43057, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.392147806818432e-08, "percentile": 0.3959937432645687 }, "sha256": "e4580e065fb389f0e411aec20c8dc17fdab1fe779952d534c8bf0481135630f1", "simhash": "1:bf212b07ccbf0355", "word_count": 6771 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:13:54.428467+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge", "WE CONCUR:", "CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge", "LINDA M. VANZI, Judge" ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WYATT B., Child-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nWECHSLER, Judge.\n{1} Child, Wyatt B., appeals his adjudication for driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs (DWI), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 66-8-102(A), (B) (2010). DWI is a delinquent act under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-3(A)(1)(a) (2009). Child primarily raises violations of the Children\u2019s Code,NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 32A-1-1 to -21 (1993, as amended through 2009), and issues of evidentiary error in connection with the district court\u2019s admission of incriminating statements Child made to police officers while subject to an investigatory detention and arrest for DWI. Under the Children\u2019s Code, police cannot question or interrogate a child suspected of having committed a delinquent act without first advising the child of his or her right to remain silent and securing the child\u2019s knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of that right. Section 32A-2-14(C); State v. Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, \u00b6 48, 131 N.M. 1, 33 P.3d 1. If a child\u2019s statements are elicited in violation of this requirement, Section 32A-2-14(D) prohibits the admission of the child\u2019s statements at a subsequent court proceeding.\n{2} Child first argues that the district court erred in admitting his statements because the State failed to prove that Child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his statutory right to remain silent, in violation of Section 32A-2-14(D). Child further argues that the State intentionally elicited inadmissible testimony regarding incriminating statements Child made before he was advised of his statutory right. Child contends that the inadmissible testimony similarly violated Section 32A-2-14(D), unfairly prejudiced Child, and could not be remedied by the distinct court\u2019s subsequent curative instruction to disregard Child\u2019s statements. Finally, Child argues that the district court erred in refusing to provide the jury with his requested instruction on duress.\n{3} We hold that Child\u2019s waiver of his statutory right to remain silent was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. We also hold that the testimony pertaining to the statements Child made before he was advised of his statutory right to remain silent was inadmissible, but that the improper admission of this evidence was harmless error. We further uphold the district court\u2019s denial of Child\u2019s request for a jury instruction on duress. Accordingly, we affirm Child\u2019s conviction.\nBACKGROUND\n{4} Late in the evening of September 23, 2012, San Juan County Sheriffs Deputies Michael Carey and Ricky Stevens responded to a dispatch report of a suspicious vehicle parked outside a convenience store located near the western border of San Juan County, New Mexico. After arriving at the store and identifying the vehicle, Deputy Carey made contact with Child, who was in the driver\u2019s seat. Deputy Stevens approached the opposite side of the vehicle and made contact with Hensley George, who was in the passenger\u2019s seat. Deputy Carey observed signs of Child\u2019s intoxication and initiated a DWI investigation, which was video-recorded by the dashboard camera in Deputy Carey\u2019s patrol car. Before advising Child of his right to remain silent, Deputy Carey asked Child a series of questions pertaining to Child\u2019s age and identity and whether Child had been drinking. Child, who was sixteen years old at that time, made incriminating statements in response to Deputy Carey\u2019s questions. Deputy Carey then turned over the DWI investigation to Deputy Stevens, who administered field sobriety tests and ultimately arrested Child for DWI. Child made additional incriminating statements to Deputy Stevens and was later found to have a breath alcohol concentration of 0.14 percent and 0.15 percent.\n{5} Child was tried pursuant to a criminal complaint charging him with DWI and possession of drug paraphernalia. Because the jury acquitted him of possession of drug paraphernalia, only the DWI conviction is at issue in this appeal. With regard to that charge, the State\u2019s evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of Deputies Carey and Stevens, the video recording that captured Deputy Carey\u2019s investigatory detention of Child, and the results of the breath alcohol tests.\n{6} On the morning of Child\u2019s trial, after selection of the jury but before opening statements, Child made an oral motion to exclude his statements to police officers. Child\u2019s counsel specifically cited Section 32A-2-14(D), which provides that before the State may introduce at trial any statements made by a child who is alleged to be delinquent, \u201cthe state shall prove that the statement or confession offered in evidence was elicited only after a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the child\u2019s constitutional rights was obtained.\u201d Child\u2019s counsel further argued that Child had not received any notice from the State that it intended to use Child\u2019s statements or offer them as evidence at Child\u2019s trial. The State argued that, as part of the discovery process, it had provided Child\u2019s counsel with a copy of Deputy Carey\u2019s dashboard camera video and had viewed the video together with Child\u2019s counsel. The district court addressed Child\u2019s motion as a suppression motion, and the court expressed its concern that attempts to suppress statements are the types of issues that are usually raised \u201cwell in advance\u201d of trial and that Child\u2019s motion \u201cshould never have been made during trial.\u201d The district court nonetheless decided to proceed in addressing Child\u2019s motion by questioning Deputy Carey outside the presence of the jury on matters pertaining to the factors the district court must consider to determine whether Child\u2019s waiver was valid.\n{7} In response to the district court\u2019s questions, Deputy Carey testified that he advised Child of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 467-68 (1966), (Miranda) after he discovered Child was a juvenile. He also testified that Child seemed to understand his questions and was not reluctant to answer them. However, in response to Child\u2019s counsel\u2019s questions, Deputy Carey testified that he could not remember what preliminary investigative questions he asked Child before advising Child of his Miranda rights. He further testified that it was possible that prior to his advisement to Child, he had asked Child whether he had been drinking. Following Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony, the district court denied a request by Child\u2019s counsel to call Deputy Stevens to the witness stand. Instead, the district court announced its ruling that, based on the testimony of Deputy Carey and after consideration of the factors outlined in Section 32A-2-14(E), Child\u2019s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.\n{8} After a brief recess, Child renewed his motion to exclude his statements, arguing that the district court should excise from Deputy Carey\u2019s dashboard camera video any statements made by Child that were elicited prior to Deputy Carey\u2019s advisement. Child\u2019s counsel again cited Section 32A-2-14(D) as support for his motion. Noting first that it had not seen Deputy Carey\u2019s video and that Child had not filed a motion to exclude or excise it, the district court asked Child\u2019s counsel if he had reviewed the video to determine the portions that he believed should be excised. Child\u2019s counsel responded that defense counsel \u201chas had difficulty getting the video to operate properly.\u201d The court again voiced its concern over the timing of Child\u2019s request, remarking that \u201cthe attorneys should have done this prior to sitting in trial with a jury in the hallway.\u201d The court then inquired whether the prosecutor knew the content of the video recording regarding statements Child made before Child was advised of his Miranda rights. The prosecutor informed the court that the questions were \u201cintroductory questions\u201d that any police officer would make during a DWI investigation, including \u201cwhat are you doing\u201d and \u201chave you been drinking.\u201d Child\u2019s counsel argued that if police asked Child if he had been drinking, that type of question would lead to an incriminating response under the Children\u2019s Code. The court noted that it may have to strike Child\u2019s statements if their introduction at trial was improper but decided to proceed with Child\u2019s trial without watching the video. The State informed the court that it planned to play only approximately seven minutes of the video.\n{9} Prior to playing Deputy Carey\u2019s video for the jury, the State asked Deputy Carey on direct examination whether he had asked Child any questions prior to turning the DWI investigation over to Deputy Stevens. Deputy Carey answered that he asked Child if he had been drinking but that he could not recall what other questions he asked Child. The State followed up with the questions, \u201cDid [Child] give you any indication to what he\u2019d been drinking?\u201d and \u201cDid [Child] give you any indication as to when the last time he had a drink was?\u201d Deputy Carey responded to both questions that he could not recall Child\u2019s answers, and the State asked if Deputy Carey\u2019s report would refresh his recollection. Deputy Carey testified that he did not write a report but that \u201ceverything should be on [the] video.\u201d\n{10} When the State moved to introduce Deputy Carey\u2019s dashboard camera video, Child objected to the admission of any statements Child made prior to being advised of his Miranda rights. The court stated that it would continue its ruling as previously given and permitted the State to play the video. The video revealed that after Deputy Carey learned Child\u2019s age, butbefore he advised Child of his right to remain silent, Deputy Carey asked Child two questions regarding how much alcohol he had to drink and when he drank it. Child gave two statements in response to Deputy Carey\u2019s questions, specifically answering that he had consumed \u201cthree cans\u201d approximately \u201cfifteen [to] thirty minutes ago.\u201d Deputy Carey then advised Child of his Miranda rights, which Child stated he understood. This portion of the video drew an objection from Child. After the video was played, the district court noted that Deputy Carey had asked Child two questions after learning Child\u2019s age but before Deputy Carey\u2019s advisement. The district court immediately instructed the jury to disregard Child\u2019s statements in response to those questions, explaining that they must not consider those statements as evidence in the case.\n{11} The prosecutor then continued her direct examination of Deputy Carey, during which the following exchange occurred:\nState: After reviewing that video, did you ask [Child] how much he had to drink that night?\nCarey: Yes.\nState: Okay. After he was Mirandizedl\nCarey: I think it was before I Mirandized him.\nState: Okay. Did you ask him after he was Mirandized how much he had been drinking?\nChild\u2019s objection to that question was overruled, and the court allowed the State\u2019s questioning to continue:\nState: So, after you Mirandized [Child], did he ever make any statements as to how much he had been drinking?\nCarey: I believe so, yes.\nState: Okay. And do you recall after watching the video, what did he tell you?\nCarey: Just the three beers.\nState: Okay. And do you recall after watching the video how long ago he stated he had been drinking?\nCarey: Thirty minutes prior to us contacting him.\n{12} After Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony and outside the presence of the jury, Child moved for a mistrial on the grounds that (1) Deputy Carey asked Child questions that elicited incriminating statements \u201cwithout first advising [Child] of [his] constitutional rights and securing a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver\u201d as required by Section 32A-2-14(C); and (2) the State introduced the evidence of Child\u2019s statements at trial in violation of Section 32A-2-14(D). The district court denied Child\u2019s motion and stated it would issue a curative instruction to the jury if Child requested it.\n{13} Before reconvening the jury and proceeding with the trial, the court offered to hear testimony from Deputy Stevens for the purpose of revisiting the issue of whether Child\u2019s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. After hearing Deputy Stevens\u2019 testimony, the district court stood by its previous ruling that Child\u2019s waiver was valid.\n{14} Prior to closing statements, the district court reminded the jury that it had instructed the jury to disregard a statement by Child on Deputy Carey\u2019s video recording. The court then read a curative instruction regarding that issue, stating that the jury must \u201cdisregard any and all statements made by [Child] to the police after the officers learned his age, but prior... to them Mirandizing him or reading him the juvenile constitutional rights. These statements are not to be considered by you for any purpose.\u201d The jury convicted Child of D WI, but it acquitted him of possession of drug paraphernalia. Child raises three issues on appeal that we address in turn.\nCHILD\u2019S WAIVER OF HIS STATUTORY RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT\n{15} Child first challenges the admissibility of inculpatory statements that he made after he was advised of his right to remain silent. Child argues that the district court\u2019s admission of this evidence violated Section 32A-2-14(D) because the State failed to demonstrate that Child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right. Child primarily claims that his impaired physical and mental condition, caused by his intoxication, inhibited his ability to validly waive his right. He also advances several other grounds in support of his argument, namely that (1) he was detained by police officers and not free to leave; (2) Deputy Carey hurried through his advisement to Child and did not slow down to confirm that Child understood his right; (3) Deputy Carey asked Child questions that he knew were likely to elicit incriminating responses; (4) Deputy Carey refused Child\u2019s request to call his parents; and (5) the district court\u2019s determination that Child validly waived his right was based, in part, on the court\u2019s mistaken belief that Child lied about his age to Deputy Carey.\nStandard of Review\n{16} Illegally obtained evidence is subject to a suppression motion to exclude the evidence from trial. Cf. City of Santa Fe v. Marquez, 2012-NMSC-031, \u00b6 27, 285 P.3d 637 (\u201cA motion to suppress presupposes that the evidence was illegally obtained.\u201d (emphasis, alteration, quotation marks, and citation omitted)); see, e.g., State v. Antonio T., 2015-NMSC-019, \u00b6 31, ___P.3d___(holding that the child\u2019s motion to suppress his incriminating statements should have been granted because the statements were obtained in violation of Section 32A-2-14(C) and the state failed to prove the child\u2019s waiver was valid pursuant to Section 32A-2-14(D)). An appeal of a district court\u2019s denial of a motion to suppress inculpatory statements involves mixed questions of fact and law. State v. Gerald B., 2006-NMCA-022, \u00b6 13, 139 N.M. 113, 129 P.3d 149. As an appellate court, we do not intrude on the district court\u2019s role as the trier of fact. State v. Urioste, 2002-NMSC-023, \u00b6 6, 132 N.M. 592, 52 P.3d 964. \u201cWe view the facts in the manner most favorable to the prevailing party and defer to the district court\u2019s findings of fact if substantial evidence exists to support those findings.\u201d Id. \u201cSubstantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.\u201d State v. Jean-Paul, 2013-NMCA-032, \u00b6 4, 295 P.3d 1072 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The district court\u2019s application of the law to the facts is a question of law that we review de novo. State v. Randy J., 2011-NMCA-105, \u00b6 10, 150 N.M. 683, 265 P.3d 734.\nProtections Under the Children\u2019s Code\n{17} The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution \u201cserves to protect persons in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being compelled to incriminate themselves.\u201d Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467. In New Mexico, children who are subject to police questioning are statutorily entitled to greater rights under Section 32A-2-14 than those guaranteed by Miranda. See Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, \u00b6 1 (concluding that Section 32A-2-14 demonstrates the Legislature\u2019s intent to afford broader rights to children than those provided in Miranda jurisprudence). Section 32A-2-14(C) prohibits police questioning of a child suspected of a delinquent act \u201cwithout first advising the child of the child\u2019s constitutional rights and securing a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver.\u201d More significantly, before the State may introduce any statements made by a child at trial, the State \u201cshall prove that the statement or confession offered in evidence was elicited only after a knowing, intelligent and voluntary waiver of the child\u2019s constitutional rights was obtained.\u201d Section 32A-2-14(D).\n{18} Our Supreme Court held in Javier M. that \u201ca child need not be under custodial interrogation\u201d by police for the statute\u2019s protections to apply. 2001-NMSC-030, \u00b6 1. \u201cCustodial interrogation occurs when an individual is swept from familiar surroundings into police custody, surrounded by antagonistic forces, and subjected to the techniques of persuasion so that the individual feels under compulsion to speak.\u201d Id. \u00b6 15 (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Rather, our Supreme Court concluded that the protections of Section 32A-2-14 also extend to a child who is \u201cseized pursuant to an investigatory detention and not free to leave.\u201d Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, \u00b6 38. \u201c[Wjhen an officer approaches a child to ask the child questions because the officer \u2018suspects\u2019 the child of delinquent behavior, the officer is performing an investigatory detention.\u201d Id. \u00b6 37. The Court held that the statute\u2019s use of the term \u201cconstitutional rights\u201d is not a reference to the \u201crequired warnings enumerated in Miranda.\u201d Id. \u00b6 41. Instead, the Court held that Section 32A-2-14 requires that the child who is subject to an investigatory detention \u201cbe advised of his or her right to remain silent and that if the child waives that right, anything said can be used against [the child].\u201d Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, \u00b6 48.\n{19} Although Section 32A-2-14 institutes these heightened statutory protections for children, the applicable test for reviewing whether a child waived his or her statutory right is the same as that of an adult. State v. Lasner, 2000-NMSC-038, \u00b6 6, 129 N.M. 806, 14 P.3d 1282. We examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the State has carried its \u201cburden of demonstrating by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived the constitutional right against self-incrimination.\u201d State v. Martinez, 1999-NMSC-018, \u00b6 14, 127 N.M. 207, 979 P.2d 718. With respect to children over the age offourteen, Section 32A-2-14(E) codifies the totality of the circumstances test and requires that courts consider \u201csome of the circumstances that may be particularly relevant for a juvenile\u201d when determining whether a child\u2019s statements are admissible. Martinez, 1999-NMSC-018, \u00b6 18. That section provides:\nIn determining whether the child knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived the child\u2019s rights, the court shall consider the following factors:\n(1)the age and education of the respondent;\n(2) whether the respondent is in custody;\n(3) the manner in which the respondent was advised of the respondent\u2019s rights;\n(4) the length of questioning and circumstances under which the respondent was questioned;\n(5) the condition of the quarters where the respondent was being kept at the time of being questioned;\n(6) the time of day and the treatment of the respondent at the time of being questioned;\n(7) the mental and physical condition of the respondent at the time of being questioned; and\n(8) whether the respondent had the counsel of an attorney, friends or relatives at the time of being questioned.\nSection 32A-2-14(E).\n{20} Child was approached and questioned by Deputy Carey because he suspected Child of DWI, a delinquent act under the Children\u2019s Code. Accordingly, Child was subject to an investigatory detention that triggered the statutory protections of Section 32A-2-14. We therefore analyze the totality of the circumstances surrounding Child\u2019s questioning to evaluate whether Child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his statutory right to remain silent. \u201cIn determining a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights, we ascertain whether [Child] was fully aware of the nature of the right he was waiving and the consequences of abandoning the right.\u201d Martinez, 1999-NMSC-018, \u00b6 21.\nValidity of Child\u2019s Waiver\n{21} Applying the factors enumerated in Section 32A-2-14(E) as part of the totality of circumstances analysis, we conclude that Child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his statutory right to remain silent. Child was sixteen years old at the time of questioning. Although the trial record does not indicate Child\u2019s educational level, our Supreme Court has held that \u201ca child over age fifteen is unlikely to make an involuntary statement . . . after receiving Miranda warnings.\u201d State v. Jonathan M., 1990-NMSC-046, \u00b6 8, 109 N.M. 789, 791 P.2d 64. Child does not dispute that' he was subject to an investigatory detention, but Child suggests that his waiver was invalid because Deputy Carey testified Child was not free to leave during questioning. We do not believe this restriction indicates Child\u2019s waiver was invalid but only indicates that the statutory protections of Section 32A-2-14 apply to Child\u2019s situation.See Javier M., 2001 -NMSC 030, \u00b6 38 (\u201c[T]he protections of [Section 32A-2-14] are triggered . . . when a child is seized pursuant to an investigatory detention and not free to leave.\u201d). Officers conducted the DWI investigation in the public parking lot of a convenience store in plain view of store employees, traffic, and other members of the public entering and exiting the store. Further, the length of time between Child\u2019s initial contact with police and his arrest for DWI lasted only approximately twelve minutes. Even though the time of day was approximately 11:00 p.m., Deputy Stevens testified that the parking lot was well-lit by the store\u2019s lights and the lights of the police patrol cars. In addition, Deputy Carey testified that his demeanor toward Child was professional and courteous and that there was no indication that Child felt in fear of the interaction. Deputy Carey informed Child of his right to remain silent, that anything Child said could be used against him, and that Child could exercise his right to not make any statements or answer any questions. Deputy Carey asked Child if he understood the advisement, and Child answered that he did. Child argues that Deputy Carey \u201cran through\u201d the advisement, failed to slow down to confirm whether Child understood his rights, and asked Child questions that he knew were likely to elicit incriminating responses. Child does not fully develop these arguments or cite any authority on these points. See State v. Flores, 2015-NMCA-002, \u00b6 17, 340 P.3d 622 (\u201c[This] Court has been clear that it is the responsibility of the parties to set forth their developed arguments, it is not the court\u2019s responsibility to presume what they may have intended.\u201d), cert. granted, 2014-NMCERT-012, 344 P.3d 988. However, to the extent Child suggests that he was \u201ctricked[] or cajoled into a waiver[,]\u201d evidence in the trial record fails to support such a claim. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 476.\n{22} W e are also not persuaded by Child\u2019s argument that his intoxication level during the time of questioning impaired his ability to validly waive his statutory right. Child points to this Court\u2019s prior holding that evidence of extreme intoxication is inconsistent with a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of rights. See State v. Bramlett, 1980-NMCA-042, \u00b6\u00b6 22-23, 94 N.M. 263, 609 P.2d 345 (holding that the defendant\u2019s statements were inadmissible because evidence of the defendant\u2019s extreme intoxication was not consistent with a valid waiver of Miranda rights), overruled on other grounds by Armijo v. State ex rel. Transp. Dep't, 1987-NMCA-052, \u00b6 8, 105 N.M. 771, 737 P.2d 552; see also State v. Young, 1994-NMCA-061, \u00b6 14, 117 N.M. 688, 875 P.2d 1119 (holding that the trial court must consider evidence of intoxication when the defendant\u2019s extreme intoxication was not consistent with a valid waiver of Miranda rights). In support of his argument, Child first cites testimony from Deputy Carey that Child had difficulty opening the door of his vehicle. Child also relies on testimony from Deputy Stevens that Child spoke in incomplete sentences due to his intoxication, stated that he was \u201cpretty buzzed,\u201d and performed poorly on the field sobriety tests. In addition, Child claims that the results of his breath alcohol concentrations of 0.14 and 0.15 exhibited an intoxication level that detrimentally impacted his ability to validly waive his right to remain silent.\n{23} We agree that the evidence of Child\u2019s intoxication demonstrates he could not drive safely, and we are mindful that \u201cvoluntary intoxication is relevant to determining whether a waiver was knowing and intelligent.\u201d Young, 1994-NMCA-061, \u00b6 14. However, we disagree that the evidence in this case compels a determination that Child was extremely intoxicated and lacked the capability to understand and waive his statutory right. In Bramlett, the defendant\u2019s breath alcohol concentration level was 0.23, he had difficulty walking, and police officers prolonged their detention of the defendant \u201cfor his own protection\u201d because he was \u201ctoo intoxicated to be released}.]\u201d 1980-NMCA-042, \u00b6\u00b6 20-21 (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, in Young, the defendant\u2019s blood alcohol level was nearly four times the level necessary to establish impairment for purposes of DWI. 1994-NMCA-061, \u00b6 14. Evidence of Child\u2019s intoxication stands in stark contrast to the evidence of extreme intoxication present in Bramlett and Young. When asked about Child\u2019s level of intoxication, Deputy Carey described Child as having \u201ca little bit of slurred speech\u201d and blood shot and watery eyes, but he testified that Child seemed to understand his questions and was not disheveled, out of control, or mentally unbalanced. Child was unable to successfully complete the field sobriety tests, but no evidence in the trial record supports a conclusion that Child was unable to walk or could not care for his own safety. Moreover, Child\u2019s breath alcohol concentration level was markedly below the levels of the defendants in Bramlett and Young. We believe that this evidence is consistent with a determination that Child knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to remain silent.\n{24} Deputy Carey denied Child\u2019s request to allow him to call his parents while he was being questioned, and Child further argues that Deputy Carey\u2019s denial runs contrary to Section 32A-2-14(E)(8) and weighs against the district court\u2019s finding of a valid waiver. Specifically, Child claims that the Legislature included Section 32A-2-14(E)(8) for the specific purpose of protecting children from pressures intrinsic to the interrogation atmosphere. Even though we consider this factor in reviewing the totality of the circumstances, Child misconstrues our well-established application of the test. The statutory factors set forth in Section 32A-2-14(E) \u201cemphasiz[e] some ofthe circumstances that may be particularly relevant for a juvenile,\u201d but \u201cpresence or absence of an attorney, friend, or relative at the questioning ... is merely one of the factors relevant in determining the validity of a waiver of rights}.]\u201d Martinez, 1999-NMSC-018, \u00b6\u00b6 18, 20. We are not convinced that the inability of Child to have his parents present during his investigatory detention overcomes other factors that suggest Child\u2019s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.\n{25} Finally, Child argues that the district court based its ruling of a valid waiver on the court\u2019s incorrect belief that Child lied about his age at the time of questioning. After viewing Deputy Carey\u2019s video, the district court, in its second ruling on the validity of Child\u2019s waiver, stated that Child \u201cfabricated his age\u201d by initially telling Deputy Carey he was fifteen rather than sixteen during questioning. Child contends that the trial record fails to support the district court\u2019s finding because the court mistakenly equated Child\u2019s ability to lie with his ability to waive his right to remain silent. However, the court did not ground its determination on the validity of Child\u2019s waiver solely in its conclusion that Child was deceptive about his age. Regardless of the district court\u2019s finding regarding Child\u2019s deception, the trial record nonetheless adequately establishes that Child understood his statutory right and the consequences of waiving that right. We are therefore convinced by the totality of the circumstances that Child\u2019s waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary and that the district court properly denied Child\u2019s suppression motion.\nADMISSION OF DEPUTY CAREY\u2019S TESTIMONY\n{26} Child next argues that Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony that Child stated he drank \u201cthree beers ... thirty minutes prior to [police] contacting him\u201d was inadmissible under Section 32A-2-14(D) and prejudiced Child. Child contends that the State intentionally elicited the improper testimony only moments after the district court viewed Deputy Carey\u2019s video and admonished the jury to disregard the statements Child made after Deputy Carey learned Child\u2019s age but before Child was advised of his right to remain silent. Child argues that the error could not be remedied by the district court\u2019s subsequent curative instruction given at the end of Child\u2019s trial to disregard Child\u2019s statements.\n{27} According to Child, the State\u2019s improper motive in eliciting Deputy Carey\u2019s inadmissible testimony requires our departure from the general rule that \u201ca prompt admonition from the court to the jury to disregard and not consider inadmissible evidence sufficiently cures any prejudicial effect which might otherwise result.\u201d State v. Newman, 1989-NMCA-086, \u00b6 19, 109 N.M. 263, 784 P.2d 1006. It is true that our courts apply a different analysis to cases in which the prosecution intentionally elicits inadmissible evidence. State v. Armijo, 2014-NMCA-013, \u00b6 9, 316 P.3d 902. In those types of cases, \u201cregardless of whether a [district] court admonishes the jury not to consider the testimony, [we] must determine whether there is a reasonable probability that the improperly admitted evidence could have induced the jury\u2019s verdict.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The trial record in this case, however, fails to support Child\u2019s assertion that the district court issued a curative instruction related to Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony regarding Child\u2019s statements. The district court, at the close of Child\u2019s trial, instead issued a curative instruction related to Child\u2019s statements as recorded by Deputy Carey\u2019s video. On appeal, Child does notraise an issue of evidentiary error with regard to the district court\u2019s admission of the video. Therefore, in the absence of a curative instruction or prompt admonition from the district court to cure any error caused by Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony, the question of whether the State intentionally elicited the testimony is not relevant for purposes of our analysis. Rather, we must determine whether Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony was inadmissible and, if so, whether the inadmissible testimony was prejudicial or harmless to Child. See State v. Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, \u00b6 25, 275 P.3d 110 (\u201cImproperly admitted evidence is not grounds for a new trial unless the error is determined to be harmful.\u201d).\n{28} Child is correct that Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony that highlighted statements Child made prior to being advised of his statutory right to remain silent was inadmissible. After the jury viewed Deputy Carey\u2019s video, the district court promptly excluded Child\u2019s statements that he drank three beers approximately fifteen to thirty minutes prior to his encounter with police officers. Over Child\u2019s objection, the district court then allowed the prosecutorto elicit testimony from Deputy Carey regarding those same statements, specifically that Child stated he had consumed \u201cthree beers . . . thirty minutes prior to [police] contacting him.\u201d Child\u2019s statements were elicited before he was advised of his statutory right to remain silent, and the improper admission of this testimony violated Section 32A-2-14(D). Therefore, we turn to whether Deputy Carey\u2019s inadmissible testimony was prejudicial or harmless to Child.\n{29} For purposes of harmless error review, we apply a non-constitutional harmless error analysis when the error implicates a violation of statutory law. \u201c[A] non-constitutional error is harmless when there is no reasonable probability the error affected the verdict.\u201d Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, \u00b6 36 (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). We conduct our harmless error analysis on a case-by-case basis and \u201cevaluate all of the circumstances surrounding the error.\u201d Id. \u00b6\u00b6 43-44. These circumstances necessarily encompass \u201can examination of the error itself, which depending upon the facts of the particular case could include an examination of the source of the error and the emphasis placed upon the error.\u201d Id. \u00b6 43. We may also consider properly admitted evidence of a defendant\u2019s guilt \u201csince it will provide context for understanding how the error arose and what role it may have played in the trial proceedings].]\u201d Id. The circumstances of a particular case will also dictate our examination of the error in the context of \u201cthe importance of the erroneously admitted evidence in the prosecution\u2019s case, as well as whether the error was cumulative or instead introduced new facts.\u201d Id. (alterations, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).\n{30} Child concedes on appeal that the evidence at his trial was generally sufficient to support his conviction forDWI. However, our inquiry for purposes of harmless error review \u201cis not to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction.\u201d Armijo, 2014-NMCA-013, \u00b6 16. We instead determine whether there is a reasonable probability that Deputy Carey\u2019s inadmissible testimony affected the jury\u2019s verdict. See Tollardo, 2012-NMSC-008, \u00b6 57 (\u201cIn the final analysis, determining whether an error was harmless requires reviewing the error itself and its role in the trial proceedings, and in light of those facts, making an educated inference abouthow that error was received by the jury.\u201d). The jury was instructed at trial that to return a guilty verdict it must find that Child \u201coperated a motor vehicle\u201d and \u201c[w]ithin three (3) hours of driving, [Child] had an alcohol concentration of eight one-hundredths (.08) grams or more].]\u201d UJI 14-4503 NMRA. The State\u2019s properly admitted evidence pertaining to these findings consisted of Child\u2019s breath alcohol test results and the deputies\u2019 testimony regarding signs of Child\u2019s intoxication, his performance on the field sobriety tests, and incriminating statements Child made after he waived his right to remain silent.\n{31} Deputy Carey testified that, upon approaching Child\u2019s vehicle, he detected the odor of alcohol and Child appeared to be intoxicated. Deputy Stevens also testified that he smelled alcohol on Child\u2019s breath as he spoke, that Child\u2019s eyes were bloodshot and watery, and that Child slurred his speech. Child also performed poorly on the field sobriety tests, particularly with regard to the tests that gauge physical balance, and Deputy Stevens testified that Child\u2019s performance was the result of his intoxication. Further, Child told Deputy Stevens that he was \u201cpretty buzzed,\u201d that George had given him alcohol and forced Child to drive, and that Child and George drove to the convenience store \u201cto do a beer run.\u201d Finally, the results of Child\u2019s breath alcohol tests , established Child\u2019s alcohol concentration level of 0.14 and 0.15, which exceeds the limit of .08 specified in Section 66-8-102 and the jury instruction. In light of this evidence, there is no reasonable probability that the admission of Deputy Carey\u2019s testimony regarding the statements Child made prior to being advised of his right to remain silent affected the verdict. Accordingly, the district court\u2019s error in admitting Deputy Carey\u2019s inadmissible testimony regarding statements Child made before he was advised of his statutory right to remain silent was harmless.\n{32} We make one final observation in connection with the course of the proceedings below. In evaluating all the circumstances surrounding the error, we note that the genesis of the error was the district court\u2019s admission of Deputy Carey\u2019s dashboard camera video without previously determining whether Child made inadmissible statements. With regard to the video, the trial record reflects the district court\u2019s frustration with the timing of Child\u2019s suppression motion as well as the inability of both Child and the State to pinpoint any statements that should be suppressed. Although the error before us in this appeal was ultimately harmless, the situation underscores the importance of both (1) the requirement that defense counsel make timely pretrial suppression motions; and (2) the State\u2019s duty to ensure compliance with Section 32A-2-14(D) before introducing evidence at trial that is inadmissible under the Children\u2019s Code.\nREQUEST FOR JURY INSTRUCTION ON DURESS\n{33} Lastly, Child argues that the district court erred in refusing to provide the jury with his requested instruction on duress, UJI 14-5130 NMRA. Child\u2019s proffered instruction was based on the theory that Child drove to the store under threat of harm from George, who testified that he \u201cforced\u201d Child to drive him. Child reiterates this same line of reasoning on appeal, contending that George\u2019s testimony constituted sufficient evidence that warranted the instruction. \u201cThe propriety of jury instructions given or denied is a mixed question of law and fact\u201d that we review de novo. State v. Lucero, 2010-NMSC-011, \u00b6 11, 147 N.M. 747, 228 P.3d 1167 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cWhen considering a defendant\u2019s requested instructions, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the giving of the requested instruction.\u201d State v. Romero, 2005-NMCA-060, \u00b6 8, 137 N.M. 456, 112 P.3d 1113. The district court\u2019s refusal of a defendant\u2019s requested jury instruction that is supported by the evidence at trial is reversible error. State v. Brown, 1996-NMSC-073, \u00b6 34, 122 N.M. 724, 931 P.2d 69.\n{34} Duress is a valid defense that is available to defendants in DWI cases. State v. Rios, 1999-NMCA-069, \u00b6\u00b6 1, 28, 127 N.M. 334, 980 P.2d 1068. Defendants who raise the defense of duress are \u201cnot attempting to disprove a requisite mental state\u201d but \u201care instead attempting to show that they ought to be excused from criminal liability because of the circumstances surrounding their intentional act.\u201d Id. \u00b6 12. The duress defense excuses or justifies a defendant\u2019s conduct based on the principle that the defendant committed the crime \u201cin order to avoid a harm of greater magnitude.\u201d State v. Gurule, 2011-NMCA-042, \u00b6 19, 149 N.M. 599, 252 P.3d 823 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). When applying the duress defense to the strict liability crime of DWI, our courts have adopted a \u201cnarrowed articulation\u201d of the defense \u201cso as not to vitiate the protectionary purpose of the strict liability statute.\u201d Rios, 1999-NMCA-069, \u00b6\u00b6 16-17 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Consequently, to be entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of duress, a defendant must present sufficient evidence that \u201c(1) [he or she] acted under unlawful and imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) he [or she] did not find himself [or herself] in a position that compelled him [or her] to violate the law due to his [or her] own recklessness, (3) he [or she] had no reasonable legal alternative, and (4) his [or her] illegal conduct was directly caused by the threat of harm.\u201d Id. \u00b6 25 \u201cThe keystone of the analysis is that the defendant must have no alternative \u2014 either before or during the event \u2014 to avoid violating the law.\u201d Rios, 1999-NMCA-069, \u00b6 17 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).\n{35} In this case, the district court denied Defendant\u2019s request for the instruction on the ground that Child did not present evidence that would support that he \u201cfeared immediate great bodily harm.\u201d Although the district court used the terms of the uniform jury instruction rather than the four-factor test articulated in Rios, its determination clearly correlates with the first factor, and it ultimately reached the correct result. George testified that he \u201cforced\u201d Child to drive him to the store that night to buy more alcohol. He further testified that he raised his voice and told Child to \u201churry\u201d before Child\u2019s parents returned home. George admitted that he \u201cpressured\u201d Child, but he also testified that he never made physical contact with Child or threatened Child with physical force or a weapon. We are not persuaded that this testimony supports Child\u2019s argument that Child acted under unlawful and imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.\n{36} Child does not provide any other arguments, record citations, or legal authority in his brief in chief that address the remaining factors necessary to make a prima facie showing that he was entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of duress. See Rios, 1999-NMCA-069, \u00b6 22 (\u201cDefendant [is] required to present evidence regarding each element of the prima facie case [for a duress instruction].\u201d); see also Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, \u00b6 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 (declining to review undeveloped arguments with no citations to the record or legal authority). Accordingly, we hold the district court properly denied Child\u2019s request for a jury instruction on duress.\nCONCLUSION\n{37} For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Child\u2019s conviction for DWI.\n{38} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nJAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge\nWE CONCUR:\nCYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge\nLINDA M. VANZI, Judge\nThe uniform jury instruction for the defense of duress provides that \u201c[i]f the defendant feared immediate great bodily harm to himself or another person if he did not commit the crime and if a reasonable person would have acted in the same way under the circumstances, [the jury] must find the defendant not guilty.\u201d UJI14-5130.", "type": "majority", "author": "WECHSLER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General", "Santa Fe, NM", "M. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General", "Albuquerque, NM", "for Appellee", "Jorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender", "Tania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender", "Santa Fe, NM", "for Child-Appellant" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Certiorari Denied, October 13, 2015,\nNo. 35,513\nIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2015-NMCA-110\nFiling Date: August 13, 2015\nDocket No. 33,297\nSTATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WYATT B., Child-Appellant.\nHector H. Balderas, Attorney General\nSanta Fe, NM\nM. Victoria Wilson, Assistant Attorney General\nAlbuquerque, NM\nfor Appellee\nJorge A. Alvarado, Chief Public Defender\nTania Shahani, Assistant Appellate Defender\nSanta Fe, NM\nfor Child-Appellant" }, "file_name": "0747-01", "first_page_order": 763, "last_page_order": 775 }