As used in the Crimes Against Household Members Act [30-3-10 NMSA 1978]:
A. “household member” means a spouse, former spouse, parent, present or former stepparent, present or former parent in-law, grandparent, grandparent-in-law, a co-parent of a child or a person with whom a person has had a continuing personal relationship. Cohabitation is not necessary to be deemed a household member for the purposes of the Crimes Against Household Members Act [30-3-10 NMSA 1978]; and
B. “continuing personal relationship” means a dating or intimate relationship.
HISTORY:
Laws 1995, ch. 221, § 2; 2008, ch. 16, § 1; 2010, ch. 85, § 1.
Amendment Notes.
The 2008 amendment, effective July 1, 2008, added the Subsection A designation and Subsection B.
The 2010 amendment, effective July 1, 2010, in (A), deleted “or family member, including a relative” following “former spouse,” substituted “parent in-law” for “in-law” following “former grandparent,” and added “grandparent, grandparent-in-law” preceding “a co-parent.”
Notes to Decisions
Construction.
Evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for assault on a household member because the jury correctly interpreted that a continuing personal relationship had a broader meaning than what was suggested by defendant regarding her official relationship status with the victim. State v. Quintana, 2009-NMCA-115, 147 N.M. 169, 218 P.3d 87, 2009 N.M. App. LEXIS 130 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009).
30-3-11 NMSA 1978 expressly includes former spouses, step-parents, or in-laws, who may or may not have had a continuing personal relationship with the accused at the time in question. State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-005, 136 N.M. 674, 104 P.3d 540, 2004 N.M. App. LEXIS 128 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004), cert. quashed, 138 N.M. 587, 124 P.3d 565, 2005 N.M. LEXIS 527 (N.M. 2005).
In the context of a “household member”, the holding of State v. Stein, 981 P.2d 295 (1999), is limited to the minor children of the accused. A plain reading of 30-3-11 NMSA 1978 supports a conclusion that the definition of “household member” includes adult children of the accused. State v. Montoya, 2005-NMCA-005, 136 N.M. 674, 104 P.3d 540, 2004 N.M. App. LEXIS 128 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004), cert. quashed, 138 N.M. 587, 124 P.3d 565, 2005 N.M. LEXIS 527 (N.M. 2005).
Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of battery of a household member because the victim and defendant testified that they lived together in New Mexico for several weeks before the incidents occurred. Such evidence alone was sufficient to establish a continuing personal relationship and therefore the victim was properly found to have been a “household member.” State v. Fike, 2002-NMCA-027, 131 N.M. 676, 41 P.3d 944, 2002 N.M. App. LEXIS 4 (Ct. App. 2002), cert. denied, 131 N.M. 737, 42 P.3d 842 (2002); overruled on other grounds, State v. Frawley, 2007-NMSC-057, 143 N.M. 7, 172 P.3d 144, 2007 N.M. LEXIS 604 (N.M. 2007), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Consaul, No. 29559, 2012 N.M. App. Unpub. LEXIS 60 (N.M. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2012).