2018 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 6 - Crimes Against Children and Dependents
Section 30-6-3 - Contributing to delinquency of minor.

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor consists of any person committing any act or omitting the performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to cause or encourage the delinquency of any person under the age of eighteen years.

Whoever commits contributing to the delinquency of a minor is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-6-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 6-3; 1990, ch. 19, § 1.

The 1990 amendment, effective July 1, 1990, substituted "the delinquency of a minor" for "delinquency of minor" in two places.

Statute does not violate freedom of expression. — The contributing to the delinquency of a minor statute does not violate the first amendment or Article II, Section 17 of the New Mexico Constitution. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad. — The contributing to the delinquency of a minor statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the first amendment. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Statute is not unconstitutionally vague. — The contributing to the delinquency of a minor statute is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Defendant's constitutional rights were not violated. — Where defendant was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor when defendant wrote a sexually explicit letter to the victim, defendant's conviction did not violate defendant's first amendment or New Mexico constitution freedom of expression rights because the conviction was premised on the effect of encouraging or tending to cause or encourage the victim's delinquency, not on the content of the letter, and Section 30-6-3 NMSA 1978 is content neutral, furthers an important and substantial governmental interest unrelated to suppression of free speech, is limited to circumstances that do not substantially burden more speech that necessary to further the interest of protecting children from delinquency, is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the first amendment, and is not void for vagueness in violation of defendant's due process rights. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

General/specific rule did not apply. — Where defendant, who was convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor when defendant wrote a sexually explicit letter to the victim, claimed that under the general/specific rule, the state was required to charge defendant under the sexually oriented materials statute, Section 30-37-2 NMSA 1978, rather than under Section 30-6-3 NMSA 1978; the general/specific rule states that if one statute deals with a subject in general and comprehensive terms and another statute addresses part of the same subject matter in a more specific manner, the latter controls; the contributing to the delinquency of a minor statute requires that the material encourage delinquency; and the sexually oriented materials statute only requires the knowing delivery of harmful materials to a minor, the general/specific rule did not apply because the statutory elements of the statutes were not the same and defendant's conviction did not violate the general/specific rule. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Double jeopardy. — Where defendant served varieties of alcohol over a considerable period of time at his own home to invited minors, and personally interacted with the minors, intending and encouraging different minors to drink to intoxication he could be found guilty of multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v. Stone, 2008-NMCA-062, 144 N.M. 78, 183 P.3d 963, cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-003, 143 N.M. 682, 180 P.3d 1181.

Jurisdiction. — Insofar as the juvenile law formerly purported to confer "exclusive original jurisdiction" on juvenile courts over persons contributing to the delinquency of juveniles it was invalid since the constitution vests sole and exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of all felony cases in the district courts. State v. McKinley, 1949-NMSC-010, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964.

Contributing minor triable in district court. — A minor, properly transferred from children's court to district court, may be tried and convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor under this section. State v. Pitts, 1986-NMSC-011, 103 N.M. 778, 714 P.2d 582.

Infants have generally been favored class for special protection in New Mexico; therefore, the legislature intended to make the commission of the act of contributing to the delinquency of a minor a crime without regard to intent. State v. Gunter, 1974-NMCA-132, 87 N.M. 71, 529 P.2d 297, cert. denied, 87 N.M. 48, 529 P.2d 274, and cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951, 95 S. Ct. 1686, 44 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1975).

Acts of commission or omission. — Any act of commission or omission causing or tending to cause juvenile delinquency as specifically defined came within the act. State v. McKinley, 1949-NMSC-010, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964.

Evidence that act causes delinquency. — In order to prove the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, the state does not need to prove that the defendant's acts had any particular effect on the victim; it is enough that his acts encourage the child to engage in delinquent behavior. State v. Lucero, 1994-NMCA-129, 118 N.M. 696, 884 P.2d 1175, cert. denied, 118 N.M. 731, 885 P.2d 1325.

Defendant need not actually cause delinquency. — The jury can convict if the defendant's act actually caused or encouraged the particular minor to commit a delinquent act or if the act only tends to cause or encourage delinquency generally. The "tends to cause or encourage" language refers to an objective view of the defendant's conduct. There is no requirement that the defendant actually cause delinquency. State v. Trevino, 1993-NMSC-067, 116 N.M. 528, 865 P.2d 1172.

Tending to cause, encourage delinquency. — Defendant's acts or omissions must have caused or tended to cause or encourage the delinquency of the juvenile. State v. Grove, 1971-NMCA-086, 82 N.M. 679, 486 P.2d 615.

Tending to cause violation of law, or immorality. — Defendant's acts must have tended to cause or encourage the prosecuting witness to violate the law of the state or to conduct himself in a manner injurious to his morals. State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Causing disobedience of lawful command. — In order to convict defendant of contributing to the delinquency of a minor for causing or encouraging the minor to refuse to obey the reasonable and lawful command or direction of the minor's parent, the state must prove that defendant knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known of such command or direction. State v. Romero, 2000-NMCA-029, 128 N.M. 806, 999 P.2d 1038.

Habituality of juveniles' conduct not prerequisite to conviction of defendant. — Defendant's contention that for his acts to be criminal hereunder they must tend to encourage "habitual" conduct on the part of the minor was unfounded, as the end result of defendant's acts, that is, whether they result in habitual conduct on the part of the juvenile, is not a prerequisite to the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Multiple victims. — Where defendant perpetrated distinct and separate acts with respect to each of seven juveniles, submission of separate elements instructions to the jury relating to each of the juveniles did not violate defendant's right against double jeopardy and his conviction on seven separate counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor was justified along with his sentence to seven sentences. State v. Barr, 1999-NMCA-081, 127 N.M. 504, 984 P.2d 185.

Criminal sexual contact of minor is separate offense. — The legislature intended for the crimes of criminal sexual contact of a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a minor to be separate crimes, punishable separately even when unitary conduct violates both statutes. Therefore, convictions under both statutes do not violate double jeopardy principles. State v. Trevino, 1993-NMSC-067, 116 N.M. 528, 865 P.2d 1172.

Indecent exposure is separate offense. — An element of indecent exposure is that the defendant's acts take place in "public view"; there is no such element in contributing to delinquency of a minor, and the trial court's refusal to give the instruction as a lesser included offense was proper. State v. Henderson, 1993-NMSC-068, 116 N.M. 537, 865 P.2d 1181, overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Meadors, 1995-NMSC-073, 121 N.M. 38, 908 P.2d 731; State v. Hernandez, 1999-NMCA-105, 127 N.M. 769, 987 P.2d 1156.

Criminal sexual penetration is separate offense. — Criminal sexual penetration of a minor requires proof of sexual penetration and contributing to delinquency of a minor requires proof that the defendant's act or omission contributed to the delinquency of a minor, and neither of those facts is required to prove the other. The legislature intended separate punishments for criminal sexual penetration of a minor and contributing to delinquency of a minor when the same conduct violates both statutes. State v. Walker, 1993-NMSC-069, 116 N.M. 546, 865 P.2d 1190.

Sexually explicit letter. — Where defendant, who was the biological parent of the victim, lived with the victim, the victim's mother, and the victim's sibling; on the day the offense occurred, defendant was alone in the house; the victim subsequently found a five page handwritten letter in the victim's underwear drawer that contained a story entitled "I Just a Fantasy Story"; the letter describing various sexual acts between the writer and the reader; the victim recognized the handwriting in the letter as defendant's handwriting; a handwriting analyst testified that the handwriting was defendant's handwriting; the content of the letter provided clues that defendant was the author; and the police found an envelope in the victim's parents' bedroom with the writing "I Just a fantasy" on it, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Sufficiency of information. — Information charging defendant with contributing to delinquency of minor did not fail to charge an offense even though it did not name the victim or allege particular acts. State v. Roessler, 1954-NMSC-017, 58 N.M. 102, 266 P.2d 351.

Evidence sufficient. — Where defendant, who was the spiritual leader of a religious group that lived together, was convicted of two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor based on an unclothed experience with two teenage children who were members of defendant's religious community; defendant claimed that the experiences were purely spiritual healing experiences; the teenage children each visited defendant alone and lay in bed naked with defendant; one child testified that defendant kissed the child on the breast; and the other child testified that while the child was unclothed and in bed next to the unclothed defendant, defendant put defendant's chest below the child's breast, defendant embraced the child by putting defendant's arm on the child's back as they lay on their sides, and defendant laid defendant's head and hand on the child's heart, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v. Bent, 2013-NMCA-108, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-012.

Where defendant took the child to a tattoo parlor and signed a written consent to allow the child to have the child's tongue pierced without the knowledge, authorization or permission of the child's parent, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor because defendant's actions caused or encouraged the child to deceive the child's parent by obtaining the piercing without permission. State v. Webb, 2013-NMCA-027, 296 P.3d 1247, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-002.

Evidence that a 17 year old boy bought two cans of beer at defendant's place and drank one of them, that the girl from whom he purchased the beer took the money into the bedroom where defendant was in bed and handed it to her or placed it on the bed beside her, and that officer found four boys in defendant's living room with empty and open cans of beer in front of them, was sufficient to warrant a conviction hereunder. State v. Ferguson, 1967-NMSC-032, 77 N.M. 441, 423 P.2d 872.

Evidence was sufficient for conviction where it showed that defendant accompanied the victim and two other minors to a store to buy alcohol, that when they arrived at the store, defendant purchased alcohol, and that, once the group arrived back at the house where a party was underway, the victim carried the alcohol into the house and drank some of it. State v. Perea, 2001-NMCA-002, 130 N.M. 46, 16 P.3d 1105, aff'd in part and vacated in part on other grounds, State v. Perea, 2001-NMSC-026, 130 N.M. 732, 31 P.3d 1006.

Defendant's acts in indecently touching the private parts of a minor and talking indecently to him tended to cause or encourage his victim to violate former 40A-9-8, 1953 Comp., prohibiting indecent exposure, and also tended to cause or encourage him to conduct himself in a manner injurious to his morals. State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Evidence that defendant showed a men's magazine to a minor and told him to unbutton his pants was sufficient for the jury to find defendant guilty of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, even without evidence that defendant engaged in fellatio or had criminal sexual contact with the minor. State v. Corbin, 1991-NMCA-021, 111 N.M. 707, 809 P.2d 57, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 720, 809 P.2d 634.

Sufficient evidence of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. — Where defendant was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM), evidence that defendant had driven to Wal-Mart with the minor child and the two had discussed the child shoplifting with him, that defendant looked out to see if anyone was coming while the child shoplifted, and where a Wal-Mart asset protection associate testified that defendant and the child appeared to be working together and that she believed that defendant was assisting the child in picking out merchandise to steal, was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for CDM. State v. Lozoya, 2017-NMCA-052, cert. denied.

Sufficient evidence to support conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. — Where defendant was convicted of human trafficking, promoting prostitution, accepting earnings from a prostitute, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and conspiracy, defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor was supported by substantial evidence where the evidence presented at trial established that defendant instructed his co-conspirator to create an advertisement for the victim, a seventeen-year old girl, on a website commonly used to advertise prostitution services, explained to the victim that she would use the ad in order to exchange sex for money, and informed the victim when and where to meet people who responded to the ad. State v. Jackson, 2018-NMCA-066, cert. denied.

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor does not require proof that the offender knew the age of the child. — Where defendant was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) for assisting a minor child in stealing bottles of alcohol from Wal-Mart, defendant's argument that failure to provide a knowledge-of-age element to the jury instruction constituted error was without merit, because CDM does not require proof that the offending adult know the age of the child to whose delinquency the adult contributed. State v. Lozoya, 2017-NMCA-052, cert. denied.

Evidence insufficient. — If from the evidence, it could be inferred that defendant was present when juvenile engaged in his admitted activities with marijuana, nevertheless there was no evidence that defendant had anything to do with these activities nor any evidence that defendant approved of them. In the absence of such evidence an inference that defendant was present when juvenile engaged in his marijuana activities was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of the juvenile. State v. Grove, 1971-NMCA-086, 82 N.M. 679, 486 P.2d 615.

Jury instruction proper. — Where time limitation was not an essential element of the offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and criminal sexual contact of a minor, no error was committed by the court's failure to instruct the jury on time limitations in connection with the charges at issue. State v. Cawley, 1990-NMSC-088, 110 N.M. 705, 799 P.2d 574.

Trial court was not without jurisdiction to impose sentence against defendant following his conviction some seven years earlier of contributing to delinquency of a minor child, at which time the court had deferred sentence until the "further order of the court." State v. Sorrows, 1957-NMSC-091, 63 N.M. 277, 317 P.2d 324.

Sentencing discretion not abused. — Where defendant pled guilty to contributing to delinquency of a minor, two counts of attempted rape being thereafter dismissed, it could not be said as a matter of law that the trial court abused its discretion by not adopting report of psychiatrist recommending probation or in not requesting diagnosis and recommendation from the department of corrections (now the criminal justice department) pursuant to Section 31-20-3 NMSA 1978. State v. Hogan, 1972-NMCA-037, 83 N.M. 608, 495 P.2d 388.

Availability of psychiatric help in penitentiary. — Where defendant convicted of contributing to delinquency of a minor asked court of appeals to take judicial notice that no psychiatric or psychological help was available for him at the penitentiary, but cited neither source nor reference for such a proposition and court found none in its search, assertion was not a matter for judicial notice. State v. Hogan, 1972-NMCA-037, 83 N.M. 608, 495 P.2d 388.

Conviction allowed to stand. — Since appellate court could only speculate as to why the jury acquitted defendant of assault, that acquittal, even though irreconcilable with conviction for contributing to delinquency of a minor by indecently touching his private parts, did not require the conviction to be set aside as a matter of law. State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Law reviews. — For symposium, "The Impact of the Equal Rights Amendment on the New Mexico Criminal Code," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 106 (1973).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children § 128 et seq.

Acts in connection with marriage of infant below marriageable age as contributing to delinquency, 68 A.L.R.2d 745.

Applicability of statute against contributing to the delinquency of children of a specified age, with respect to a child who has passed the anniversary date of such age, 73 A.L.R.2d 874.

Criminal liability for contributing to delinquency of minor by sexually immoral acts as affected by fact that minor was married at time of acts charged, 84 A.L.R.2d 1254.

Criminal liability for contributing to delinquency of minor as affected by the fact that minor has not become a delinquent, 18 A.L.R.3d 824.

Mens rea or guilty intent as necessary element of offense of contributing to delinquency or dependency of minor, 31 A.L.R.3d 848.

Drugs: giving, selling or prescribing, dangerous drugs as contributing to the delinquency of a minor, 36 A.L.R.3d 1292.

43 C.J.S. Infants § 95.