July 10, 2019- State of New Mexico v. Jayden A., No. A-1-CA-37801

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
3 	Plaintiff-Appellee,
4 v. 	No. A-1-CA-37801
5 JAYDEN A.,
6 	Child-Appellant.
7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
8 Michael H. Stone, District Judge
9 Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General
10 Santa Fe, NM
11 	for Appellee
12 Bennett J. Baur, Chief Public Defender
13 	Allison H. Jaramillo, Assistant Appellate Defender
14 Santa Fe, NM
15 	for Appellant
16 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
17 VANZI, Judge.
18 	{l} 	Child has appealed following an adjudication of delinquency. We previously
19 issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm.
20 	Child has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due consideration, we remain
21 	unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/10/2019 1:15 PM

1 {2} 	The pertinent background information has previously been set forth. We will
2 avoid undue reiteration here, and focus instead on the content of the memorandum in
3 opposition.
4 	{3} 	First, Child renews his argument that his confession should have been
5 suppressed on grounds that it was coerced. [MIO 1-8] In this regard he continues to
6 assert that the officer's statements, including generalized promises to "help" Child
7 and his suggestion that "no problems would result from [any] confession," should be
8 regarded as a promise of leniency. [MIO 3-8]
9 {4} 	If an express promise ofleniency had been made, suppression would have been
10 	in order. 	See State v. Baroz, 2017-NMSC-030, 135, 404 P.3d 769 (observing that
11 	express promises of leniency render confessions involuntary as a matter of law). In
12 this case, however, there was no such express promise. And although the officer's
13 	statements might have been interpreted as an implied promise ofleniency, this is only
14 a factor in the totality of the circumstances that courts consider in determining
15 	whether the confession was voluntary. 	See State v. Gutierrez, 2011:.NMSC-024,
16 1125-29, 150 N.M. 232, 258 P.3d. 1024.
17 	{5} 	Child suggests that "heightened protections" should be afforded, and contends
18 that a different result should be reached, given that he is a minor, given his "chaotic
2

1 and unstable" home life, and given that he did not have counsel or a parent present.
2 [MIO 5-6] Although these are relevant considerations, they do not compel a different
3 result. See, e.g., State v. Rivas, 2017-NMSC-022, 1132-35, 398 P.3d 299 (upholding
4 the validity of a waiver by a juvenile under similar circumstances).
5 {6} 	We understand Child to further contend that the case ofState v. Talayumptewa,
6 2015-NMCA-008,341 P.3d20, supports his position. [MI07]However, the situation
7 presented in that case is readily distinguishable. In Talayumptewa, the officers
8 indicated that if the defendant made admissions, they would intercede with the district
9 attorney to have the charges reduced or not brought at all. Id 18. The officer did not
10 make similar statements in this case.
11 	{7} 	We remain of the opinion that the generalized offers of help, and the vague
12 statement that "no problems would result," render this case more analogous to the
13 	situation addressed in Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, 11 25-29, where an officer's
14 statements that he could "help" if the sixteen-year-old subject would give a truthful
15 	statement did not render the ensuing confession involuntary. We arrive at a similar
16 conclusion in this case. We therefore reject Child's principal assertion of error.
17 {8} 	Finally, Child renews his challenge to the denial of his request for instruction
18 on the defense of involuntary intoxication. [MIO 8-1 O] As we previously observed,
3

1 the evidence did not support the defense; and in any event, insofar as CSCM is a
2 general intent crime, the defense was inapplicable. [CN 5-6] We therefore remain
3 unpersuaded.
4 	{9} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated -in our notice of proposed summary
5 disposition and above, we affirm.
6 	{to} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
9 WE CONCUR:
10 	·~t&k 	.11 	JE.ATTREP, Judge
12 	'lP1r 	f)~13 	MEG P. nuFFY,iu~
4