{
  "id": 1568785,
  "name": "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mike SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sanders",
  "decision_date": "1979-09-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 3944",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "93 N.M. 450"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "601 P.2d 83"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 N.M. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571016
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571101
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0554-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N.M. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1571144
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/91/0266-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2553,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.412660746464053e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6472746094463422
    },
    "sha256": "2ed55a4153c1aa3f0ec63f071672925649551959549787fc5bcc2bfb7ce683a0",
    "simhash": "1:5faa6ca454ed5cc7",
    "word_count": 393
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:36.909287+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and WALTERS, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mike SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nWe reverse defendant\u2019s conviction of child abuse because of the trial court\u2019s refusal to give defendant\u2019s requested instruction limiting the jury\u2019s consideration of certain evidence. None of the other issues briefed by defendant amount to reversible error and, thus, are not discussed.\nThe child abuse offense, \u00a7 30-6-l(C), N.M.S.A.1978, was submitted to the jury on the basis that defendant knowingly or intentionally, and without justifiable cause, caused or permitted the child to be tortured or cruelly punished.\nThe prosecution introduced evidence of two incidents of alleged child abuse prior to the incident in question. This evidence was introduced, under Evidence Rule 404(b), to prove the incident in question was not an accident.\nU.J.I. Crim. 40.28 is an approved instruction which limits the jury\u2019s consideration of evidence of other wrongs or offenses to the purpose for which the evidence was introduced.\nDefendant\u2019s requested instruction, consistent with U.J.I. 40.28, would have limited jury consideration of the prior incidents to \u201cabsence of accident . . . .\u201d This re-\nquested instruction was refused.\nThe Use Note to U.J.I. Crim. 40.28 states that upon request, this instruction shall be given at the time final instructions are given to the jury. This \u201cuse\u201d is consistent with Evidence Rule 106. Refusal of the requested instruction was error.\nIn State v. Traxler, 91 N.M. 266, 572 P.2d 1274 (Ct.App.1977) we considered the consequence of a failure to give an instruction that U.J.I. Crim. states \u201cshall\u201d be given, and held that upon a showing of the slightest evidence of prejudice, the error would be reversible error. Compare State v. Fuentes, 91 N.M. 554, 577 P.2d 452 (Ct.App.1978). Evidence as to defendant\u2019s responsibility for the child\u2019s injury was severely disputed, and defendant\u2019s credibility was crucial. See State v. Day, 91 N.M. 570, 577 P.2d 878 (Ct.App.1978). In this situation there is a sufficient showing of prejudice so that the failure to give the instruction based on U.J.I., Crim. 40.28 was reversible error.\nThe conviction is reversed and remanded with instructions to grant defendant a new trial.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nHENDLEY and WALTERS, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Narciso Garcia, Jr., Toulouse, Krehbiel & DeLayo, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.",
      "Jeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Arthur Encimas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "601 P.2d 83\nSTATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mike SANDERS, Defendant-Appellant.\nNo. 3944.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nSept. 13, 1979.\nNarciso Garcia, Jr., Toulouse, Krehbiel & DeLayo, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant.\nJeff Bingaman, Atty. Gen., Arthur Encimas, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for plaintiff-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 496,
  "last_page_order": 497
}