Taylor attorney: Supreme Court opinion encouraging

SANTA FE — A New Mexico Supreme Court ruling issued Monday provided legal framework for its September decision to free a pair of former Portales daycare owners from prison while they appeal their convictions for reckless child abuse.

And language in the 4-0 opinion provided strong indication Sandi and Mary Taylor could see a new trial or even acquittal.

Sandi and Mary Taylor, former owners of the Taylor Tots Daycare, were sentenced to 30 and 36 years in prison, respectively, after two children in their care were left in a hot vehicle for 2 hours and 40 minutes in July 2017.

Maliyah Jones, 22 months, died as a result of the incident. Aubri Loya, then 23 months, was seriously injured but survived and has recently started public school.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals last week upheld the district court convictions, and the Taylors are appealing to the Supreme Court.

Taylor attorney Tye Harmon said the Supreme Court’s opinion, which has no bearing on the appeals court decision, was held off until this week to avoid influencing the Court of Appeals. But he saw plenty of reason to be encouraged.

“The Supreme Court has issued this decision as to why they released the Taylors,” Harmon said, “and we will still follow through with our petition (to have the appeal heard). It’s not a guarantee of the final decision, but it does appear the Supreme Court agrees with our arguments.”

The Taylors have argued the 2017 incident, while unquestionably tragic, was accidental in nature and did not rise to the level of reckless child abuse.

The court opinion stated the Taylors met the four requirements of Section 31-11-1(C) of New Mexico law, established in 1988, for release while a conviction for a non-violent offense is appealed:

• The defendants must not be flight risks or pose danger to the safety of the community.

• The appeal is not for the purpose of delay.

• The appeal raises substantial question of law or fact.

• The question if determined favorably to the defendant would likely result in a reversal or order for a new trial.

“They challenge the sufficiency of the evidence against them (that they committed child abuse by reckless disregard),” the ruling from Justice C. Shannon Bacon read, “and they claim that instructional error prevented the jury from arriving at a unanimous decision as to the conduct alleged to be child abuse.”

The state has not argued the first two criteria, and the Supreme Court concurred both questions met the third and fourth criteria.

“On the one hand, defendants originally placed the children in the vehicle and failed to notice that they were missing for over two hours. This failure is consistent with other evidence that defendants did not always take appropriate precautions to ensure the safety and well-being of the children at the daycare. ...

“On the other hand, defendants did not leave the children in the vehicle with the intent to leave them in the vehicle. Each defendant thought the other had removed the two children from the vehicle.”

Regarding jury instructions, the court concluded, “The issue regarding the jury instructions is ‘not frivolous’ and ‘could very well be decided the other way.’”

The Supreme Court, presuming it hears an appeal, can do one of three things — uphold the district and appeals court decision, order a new trial or reverse the conviction and acquit the Taylors.

Harmon said had the court addressed only the jury instructions, that would certainly pave the way to a new trial. But seeing the court also address the evidence signals an acquittal is possible.

“The fact that they agreed with each of our arguments,” Harmon said, “is extremely encouraging.”

When reached for comment, District Attorney Andrea Reeb told The News, “I am still of the opinion that the proper research and law is laid out in the court of appeals decision.”