New Mexico Statutes
Article 22 - Interference with Law Enforcement
Section 30-22-19 - Unlawful assault on any jail.

Unlawful assault on any jail consists of any person or group of persons assaulting or attacking any jail, prison or other public building or place of confinement of prisoners held in lawful custody or confinement.
Whoever commits unlawful assault on any jail, prison or other public building or place of confinement of prisoners held in lawful custody or confinement is guilty of a third degree felony.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-22-18, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 22-18.
Statute not unconstitutionally vague. — Where defendants were charged with unlawful assault on a jail based on evidence that they, and several other inmates, defied an order to lock down during a shift change of correction officers while incarcerated in the Otero county detention center, and where defendants claimed that the assault on a jail statute is unconstitutionally vague, defendants' constitutional claim is without merit because a person of ordinary intelligence using common sense would understand that § 30-22-19 NMSA 1978 prohibits a violent attack on a jail's facilities or operations, regardless of whether the attack originates inside or outside of the jail, and defendants' conduct in barricading a door with a mattress and plastic cot and rushing officers with the mattresses to push them back down soaped-up stairs in an effort to prevent prison officials, law enforcement, or facility personnel from entering a pod, constituted unlawful assault on a jail. Moreover, the assault on a jail statute has guidelines prohibiting certain conduct, whether by persons incarcerated or not, and the decision to charge defendants with assault on a jail entailed no application of discretion, much less of an arbitrary nature. State v. Anderson and State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, cert. granted.
Disorderly conduct and evading or obstructing an officer are not lesser included offenses of unlawful assault on a jail. — Where defendants were charged with unlawful assault on a jail based on evidence that they, and several other inmates, defied an order to lock down during a shift change of correction officers while incarcerated in the Otero county detention center, and where defendants claimed that the district court erred in denying their lesser included offense instructions of disorderly conduct and evading or obstructing an officer, the district court did not err in denying the requested instructions, because disorderly conduct and evading or obstructing an officer are not lesser included offenses of assault on a jail. Defendants' conduct did not occur in a public place as required by § 30-20-1(A) NMSA 1978, nor were their actions acts of violence capable of disturbing a community of the sort protected from such by § 30-22-19 NMSA 1978, and defendants' actions did not equate to an effort to avoid apprehension or arrest as contemplated by § 30-22-1(B) NMSA 1978. State v. Anderson and State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, cert. granted.
Substantial evidence of assault on a jail. — Where defendants were charged with unlawful assault on a jail based on evidence that they, and several other inmates, defied an order to lock down during a shift change of correction officers while incarcerated in the Otero county detention center, there was sufficient evidence to support defendants' convictions where the state presented video evidence that showed inmates' efforts to disobey the shift change lockdown order by misusing jail property to disable access into the pod by prison officials and law enforcement officers arriving to assist them, and the surveillance footage clearly depicted defendants participating in the conflict. Defendants' collective actions attacked the jail and imperiled the function and safety of the facility in a dangerous and destructive manner that satisfied the state's burden under § 30-22-19 NMSA 1978. State v. Anderson and State v. Wilson, 2021-NMCA-031, cert. granted.
Collateral estoppel. — Acquittal of defendant on charge of assault on a jail did not collaterally estop state from bringing subsequent prosecution against him on charge of assault with intent to commit a violent felony, even where both offenses allegedly occurred at same time and place, since charge of assault with intent to commit a violent felony required a jury to consider facts not required in the first trial. State v. Tijerina, 1973-NMSC-105, 86 N.M. 31, 519 P.2d 127, cert. denied, 417 U.S. 956, 94 S. Ct. 3085, 41 L. Ed. 2d 674.
Law reviews. — For article, "The Confusing Law of Criminal Intent in New Mexico," see 5 N.M.L. Rev. 63 (1974).

Structure New Mexico Statutes