# State v. Chavez

> New Mexico Supreme Court · June 23, 2009 · 146 N.M. 434

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512679

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Julio CHAVEZ, Defendant-Petitioner
- **Court:** New Mexico Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 23, 2009
- **Citations:** 146 N.M. 434; 211 P.3d 891; 2009 NMSC 035
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Maes
- **Judges:** Bosson, Maes, Chávez, Serna, Daniels
- **Cited by:** 153 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512679

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “[w]here a defendant’s underlying conduct violates a separate criminal statute, such legislative declaration of harm may be useful, though not dispositive, to an endangerment analysis when the Legislature has defined the act as a threat to public health, safety…
- stating that a third-degree felony classification indicates that “our Legislature anticipated that criminal prosecution would be reserved for the most serious occurrences, and not for minor or theoretical dangers”
- holding that the risk and degree of likelihood of disease or illness caused by the presence of rodent droppings or parasites is a matter of science that should be established by empirical and scientific evidence
- holding that the child abuse by endangerment statute contemplates punishment for “conduct that creates a truly significant risk of serious harm to children” rather than “minor or theoretical dangers”
- recognizing that a conviction for child abuse by endangerment requires that the defendant place a child within the zone of danger and in physical proximity to an inherently dangerous situation

## Opinion text

MAES, Justice (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9512679. Public record. Not legal advice.