Halyna Hutchins Shot With Prop Gun - Alec Baldwin indicted & Hannah Gutierrez-Reed charged, 2021 #6

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #301

"Alec Baldwin claims he's facing bogus weapons charge:

Lawyers argue state legislature didn't pass law he allegedly violated until 7 months AFTER he accidentally shot Halyna Hutchins dead."


As posted up-thread, the law was indeed in place, the recent change includes "brandishing" a firearm under this statute.

AB fired the pistol, covered under the statute in place at the time of the death.

Defense attorneys doing what defense attorneys do, imho.
 
  • #302
As posted up-thread, the law was indeed in place, the recent change includes "brandishing" a firearm under this statute.

AB fired the pistol, covered under the statute in place at the time of the death.

Defense attorneys doing what defense attorneys do, imho.
Er, the document submitted by AB's lawyers asserts the opposite: that the law as in effect at the time of the shooting required "brandishing," the later amendment loosened the standard. Their submission is attached. So who got it wrong?
 

Attachments

  • #303
Imo, in the PDF I linked, it does say 'brandish', and it seems to have been signed/effective in 2020:

SECTION 3. Section 31-18-16 NMSA 1978 (being Laws 1977,
Chapter 216, Section 5, as amended) is amended to read:
"31-18-16. BRANDISHING OF FIREARM
--ALTERATION OF BASIC
SENTENCE--SUSPENSION AND DEFERRAL LIMITED.--
A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or
jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of
a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment
prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978
shall be increased by three years, ...
...
D. As used in this section, "brandished" means
displaying or making a firearm known to another person while
the firearm is present on the person of the offending party
with intent to intimidate or injure a person.
"
...
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.--The effective date of the
provisions of this act is July 1, 2020
.

https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/20 Regular/final/HB0006.pdf

Yes, it already said brandishing and as you can see, the statute was in place by 2020.

Looks like the brandishing goes back to at least 2016 and adds 3 years. It was revised in 2022, I think. That's the way I read it.


But it's the USE of a firearm section that is relevant here. Adds 5 years:


And I believe that's from 2016 (the firearm enhancement section).

I believe. IMO.
 
  • #304
Er, the document submitted by AB's lawyers asserts the opposite: that the law as in effect at the time of the shooting required "brandishing," the later amendment loosened the standard. Their submission is attached. So who got it wrong?

And yet, NM case law shows that the firearm use part of the statute goes back to 2016.


They aren't charging him with brandishing, but with use (Section C of the above link).

IMO. Not the section on brandishing.

C. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was discharged in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by five years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender who received an adult sentence, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by three years.

N.M. Stat. § 31-18-16
 
  • #305
Who has stated that Alec was told to use a plastic gun? I was unaware of that.

HGR has stated in, via her attorney. I believe it's in the 550 evidence documented released by LE.


From that article:

//Bowles and Bullion added: "Hannah asked Halls if they could use a plastic gun for the rehearsal scene and he said no, wanting a 'real gun.' Hannah asked to be called back into the church if Baldwin was going to use the gun at all and Halls failed to do that.//

So not "told to use" but Hannah "asked" Halls if they could use a plastic gun. She obviously had no real power on this set. The armorer is supposed to make those decisions, not ask permission of a non-armorer about what to do. She also specifically said she should be there if they didn't use the plastic gun. Which Halls and Baldwin failed to insure.
 
  • #306
HGR has stated in, via her attorney. I believe it's in the 550 evidence documented released by LE.


From that article:

//Bowles and Bullion added: "Hannah asked Halls if they could use a plastic gun for the rehearsal scene and he said no, wanting a 'real gun.' Hannah asked to be called back into the church if Baldwin was going to use the gun at all and Halls failed to do that.//

So not "told to use" but Hannah "asked" Halls if they could use a plastic gun. She obviously had no real power on this set. The armorer is supposed to make those decisions, not ask permission of a non-armorer about what to do. She also specifically said she should be there if they didn't use the plastic gun. Which Halls and Baldwin failed to insure.


BBM



So Hall said no they wanted a real gun.

Clearly that should indicate to Hannah that she needed to be there.

Why would she need to be called back if he does use a gun?

Hall’s already told her they wanted a real gun.

Because she wanted to do something else rather than bother with a rehearsal of the main character?

It seems she deliberately ignored Hall’s stated intent and her duty to be present or she would have been on top of that real gun plan and shown up asked or not.

Why would she have power over the way the rehearsal is going?

Isn’t that why she is on set to carry out duties associated with the handling of guns as directed in the production as it rehearses and films?

How is it unreasonable to have a major scene with the main character using the gun they will film with as they rehearse for the camera shots? A plastic gun, apparently, doesn’t look just like a real one on film so they want an idea of what the real one would look like in that scene as it will be filmed.

All imo
 
  • #307
And yet, NM case law shows that the firearm use part of the statute goes back to 2016.


They aren't charging him with brandishing, but with use (Section C of the above link).

IMO. Not the section on brandishing.

C. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was discharged in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by five years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender who received an adult sentence, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by three years.

N.M. Stat. § 31-18-16
I think this resource is excellent, up to date, accurate, AND you can also look it up to see what each previous version said before the current one, and the one before that, etc. The one quoted above came into effect in May 2022, months after the event. I'm not sure if the links will work, but if not, go to nmonesource.com and go from there - pick a year, pick a section (31), and pick a paragraph (18), and pick a topic, etc. For those not interested in legaleze, please just scroll on by, I tried to paste relevant parts but it is long.
ETA: formatting: strike-out by me, on the parts that aren't applicable for reasons that are bolded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2021

31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions.
A. If a person is convicted of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment is as follows:
….
(13) for a fourth degree felony, eighteen months imprisonment.

B. The appropriate basic sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed upon a person convicted and sentenced pursuant to Subsection A of this section, unless the court alters the sentence pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing Act.

C. A period of parole shall be imposed only for felony convictions wherein a person is sentenced to imprisonment of more than one year, unless the parties to a proceeding agree that a period of parole should be imposed. If a period of parole is imposed, the court shall include in the judgment and sentence of each person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a corrections facility designated by the corrections department authority for a period of parole to be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 31-21-10 NMSA 1978 after the completion of any actual time of imprisonment and authority to require, as a condition of parole, the payment of the costs of parole services and reimbursement to a law enforcement agency or local crime stopper program in accordance with the provisions of that section. If imposed, the period of parole shall be deemed to be part of the sentence of the convicted person in addition to the basic sentence imposed pursuant to Subsection A of this section together with alterations, if any, pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing Act.

D. When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15.1, 31-18-16 or 31-18-17 NMSA 1978 and suspends or defers the basic sentence of imprisonment provided pursuant to the provisions of Subsection A of this section, the period of parole shall be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 31-21-10 NMSA 1978 for the degree of felony for the basic sentence for which the inmate was convicted. For the purpose of designating a period of parole, a court shall not consider that the basic sentence of imprisonment was suspended or deferred and that the inmate served a period of imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing Act.

E. The court may, in addition to the imposition of a basic sentence of imprisonment, impose a fine not to exceed:

(11) for a third or fourth degree felony, five thousand dollars ($5,000); or
...

F. When the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a felony offense, the court shall indicate whether or not the offense is a serious violent offense, as defined in Section 33-2-34 NMSA 1978. The court shall inform an offender that the offender's sentence of imprisonment is subject to the provisions of Sections 33-2-34, 33-2-36, 33-2-37 and 33-2-38 NMSA 1978. If the court fails to inform an offender that the offender's sentence is subject to those provisions or if the court provides the offender with erroneous information regarding those provisions, the failure to inform or the error shall not provide a basis for a writ of habeas corpus.

G. No later than October 31 of each year, the New Mexico sentencing commission shall provide a written report to the secretary of corrections, all New Mexico criminal court judges, the administrative office of the district attorneys and the chief public defender. The report shall specify the average reduction in the sentence of imprisonment for serious violent offenses and nonviolent offenses, as defined in Section 33-2-34 NMSA 1978, due to meritorious deductions earned by prisoners during the previous fiscal year pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33-2-34, 33-2-36, 33-2-37 and 33-2-38 NMSA 1978. The corrections department shall allow the commission access to documents used by the department to determine earned meritorious deductions for prisoners.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-28, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 4; 1979, ch. 152, § 1; 1980, ch. 38, § 1; 1981, ch. 285, § 1; 1987, ch. 139, § 3; 1993, ch. 38, § 1; 1993, ch. 182, § 1; 1994, ch. 23, § 3; 1999, ch. 238, § 5; 2003, ch. 75, § 4; 2003 (1st S.S.), ch. 1, § 5; 2005, ch. 59, § 2; 2007, ch. 69, § 2; 2016, ch. 2, § 2; 2019, ch. 211, § 7.

Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure (2021) - NMOneSource.com

31-18-16. Brandishing of firearm; alteration of basic sentence; suspension and deferral limited.

A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by three years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by one year.

B. For a second or subsequent noncapital felony in which a firearm is brandished, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by five years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by three years.

C. If the case is tried before a jury and if a prima facie case has been established showing that a firearm was brandished in the commission of the offense, the court shall submit the issue to the jury by special interrogatory. If the case is tried by the court and if a prima facie case has been established showing that a firearm was brandished in the commission of the offense, the court shall decide the issue and shall make a separate finding of fact thereon.


D. As used in this section, "brandished" means displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person.

History:
1953 Comp., § 40A-29-29, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 5; 1979, ch. 152, § 3; 1993, ch. 77, § 7; 2020, ch. 54, § 3.

ANNOTATIONS​

The 2020 amendment, effective July 1, 2020, increased the sentence enhancements for brandishing of a firearm in the commission of a noncapital felony, and defined "brandished" as used in this section; in the section heading, and throughout the section, substituted "brandished" for "used"; in Subsection A, after "shall be increased by", deleted "one year and the sentence imposed by this subsection shall be the first served" and added "three years, except"; in Subsection B, after "shall be increased by", deleted "three" and added "five", and after "years", deleted "and the sentence imposed by this subsection shall be the first three years served, and shall not be suspended or deferred; provided" and added "except"; and added Subsection D.

Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure (2021) - NMOneSource.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
2022

31-18-15. Sentencing authority; noncapital felonies; basic sentences and fines; parole authority; meritorious deductions.​

A. As used in a statute that establishes a noncapital felony, the following defined felony classifications and associated basic sentences of imprisonment are as follows:

FELONY CLASSIFICATIONBASIC SENTENCE

fourth degree felony
...

eighteen months imprisonment.
...

B. The appropriate basic sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed upon a person convicted and sentenced pursuant to Subsection A of this section, unless the court alters the sentence pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing Act.

C. A period of parole shall be imposed only for felony convictions wherein a person is sentenced to imprisonment of more than one year, unless the parties to a proceeding agree that a period of parole should be imposed. If a period of parole is imposed, the court shall include in the judgment and sentence of each person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a corrections facility designated by the corrections department authority for a period of parole to be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 31-21-10 NMSA 1978 after the completion of any actual time of imprisonment and authority to require, as a condition of parole, the payment of the costs of parole services and reimbursement to a law enforcement agency or local crime stopper program in accordance with the provisions of that section. If imposed, the period of parole shall be deemed to be part of the sentence of the convicted person in addition to the basic sentence imposed pursuant to Subsection A of this section together with alterations, if any, pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing Act.

D. When a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of Section 31-18-15.1, 31-18-16 or 31-18-17 NMSA 1978 and suspends or defers the basic sentence of imprisonment provided pursuant to the provisions of Subsection A of this section, the period of parole shall be served in accordance with the provisions of Section 31-21-10 NMSA 1978 for the degree of felony for the basic sentence for which the inmate was convicted. For the purpose of designating a period of parole, a court shall not consider that the basic sentence of imprisonment was suspended or deferred and that the inmate served a period of imprisonment pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Sentencing Act.

E. The court may, in addition to the imposition of a basic sentence of imprisonment, impose a fine not to exceed:

(11) for a third or fourth degree felony, five thousand dollars ($5,000); or ...


F. When the court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a felony offense, the court shall indicate whether or not the offense is a serious violent offense as defined in Section 33-2-34 NMSA 1978. The court shall inform an offender that the offender's sentence of imprisonment is subject to the provisions of Sections 33-2-34, 33-2-36, 33-2-37 and 33-2-38 NMSA 1978. If the court fails to inform an offender that the offender's sentence is subject to those provisions or if the court provides the offender with erroneous information regarding those provisions, the failure to inform or the error shall not provide a basis for a writ of habeas corpus.

G. No later than October 31 of each year, the New Mexico sentencing commission shall provide a written report to the secretary of corrections, all New Mexico criminal court judges, the administrative office of the district attorneys and the chief public defender. The report shall specify the average reduction in the sentence of imprisonment for serious violent offenses and nonviolent offenses, as defined in Section 33-2-34 NMSA 1978, due to meritorious deductions earned by prisoners during the previous fiscal year pursuant to the provisions of Sections 33-2-34, 33-2-36, 33-2-37 and 33-2-38 NMSA 1978. The corrections department shall allow the commission access to documents used by the department to determine earned meritorious deductions for prisoners.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-28, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 4; 1979, ch. 152, § 1; 1980, ch. 38, § 1; 1981, ch. 285, § 1; 1987, ch. 139, § 3; 1993, ch. 38, § 1; 1993, ch. 182, § 1; 1994, ch. 23, § 3; 1999, ch. 238, § 5; 2003, ch. 75, § 4; 2003 (1st S.S.), ch. 1, § 5; 2005, ch. 59, § 2; 2007, ch. 69, § 2; 2016, ch. 2, § 2; 2019, ch. 211, § 7; 2022, ch. 56, § 29.
Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure (2022) - NMOneSource.com

-----------------------------------------

31-18-16. Use, brandishing or discharge of firearm; alteration of basic sentence; suspension and deferral limited.

A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was used in relation to a drug transaction or during the commission of aggravated burglary pursuant to Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978 or a serious violent offense, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by one year, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender who received an adult sentence, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by one year.

B. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by three years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender that received an adult sentence, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by one year.


C. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was discharged in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by five years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender who received an adult sentence, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by three years.

D. For a second or subsequent offense, when a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was used, brandished, or discharged in relation to a drug transaction or during the commission of aggravated burglary pursuant to Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978 or a serious violent offense, the sentence shall be increased by five years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender, the sentence imposed by this section may be increased by three years.

E. If the case is tried before a jury and if a prima facie case has been established showing that a firearm was used, brandished or discharged in relation to a drug transaction or during the commission of aggravated burglary pursuant to Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978 or a serious violent offense, the court shall submit the issue to the jury by special interrogatory. If the case is tried by the court, the court shall decide the issue and shall make a separate finding of fact thereon.

F. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was used, brandished or discharged in relation to a drug transaction or during the commission of aggravated burglary pursuant to Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978 or a serious violent offense, the firearm is subject to seizure and forfeiture as an instrumentality pursuant to the provisions of the Forfeiture Act [Chapter 31, Article 27 NMSA 1978].


G. As used in this section:

(1) "brandished" means displaying or making a firearm known to another person while the firearm is present on the person of the offending party with intent to intimidate or injure a person;

(2) "in relation to a drug transaction" means participating or attempting to participate in the trafficking of a controlled substance pursuant to Section 30-31-20 NMSA 1978, distribution of a controlled substance to a minor pursuant to Section 30-31-21 NMSA 1978 or distribution of a controlled or counterfeit substance pursuant to Section 30-31-22 NMSA 1978 as a seller, purported seller or as an accomplice; and

(3) "serious violent offense" means an offense enumerated in Subparagraphs (a) through (n) of Paragraph (4) of Subsection L of Section 33-2-34 NMSA 1978.


History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-29-29, enacted by Laws 1977, ch. 216, § 5; 1979, ch. 152, § 3; 1993, ch. 77, § 7; 2020, ch. 54, § 3; 2022, ch. 56, § 30.

ANNOTATIONS​

The 2022 amendment, effective May 18, 2022, provided for a sentencing enhancement when a firearm is used during the commission of a drug transaction or serious violent offense, and provided that if a firearm is used during the commission of a drug transaction or serious violent offense, the firearm is subject to seizure; added a new Subsection A and redesignated former Subsection A as Subsection B; deleted former Subsection B, added new Subsections C and D and redesignated former Subsection C as Subsection E; in Subsection E, after "showing that a firearm was", added "used", after "brandished", deleted "in the commission of the offense" and added "or discharged in relation to a drug transaction or during the commission of aggravated burglary pursuant to Section 30-16-4 NMSA 1978 or a serious violent offense", and after "tried by the court", deleted "and if a prima facie case has been established showing that a firearm was brandished in the commission of the offense"; added a new Subsection F and redesignated former Subsection D as Subsection G; and in Subsection G, added Paragraphs G(2) and G(3).

The 2020 amendment, effective July 1, 2020, increased the sentence enhancements for brandishing of a firearm in the commission of a noncapital felony, and defined "brandished" as used in this section; in the section heading, and throughout the section, substituted "brandished" for "used"; in Subsection A, after "shall be increased by", deleted "one year and the sentence imposed by this subsection shall be the first served" and added "three years, except"; in Subsection B, after "shall be increased by", deleted "three" and added "five", and after "years", deleted "and the sentence imposed by this subsection shall be the first three years served, and shall not be suspended or deferred; provided" and added "except"; and added Subsection D.

The 1993 amendment, effective July 1, 1993, added the provisos at the end of Subsections A and B.

Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure (2022) - NMOneSource.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
  • #308
If I am reading that site correctly, the 2021 statute (originally effective 2020) specifies that an increased basic sentence adding 5 years is applicable when a gun is brandished. It certainly looks like the 5 years will have to be taken off the table for AB, since there's no evidence leading anyone to think he had "intent to intimidate or injure" HH, and he will only be facing 18 months plus a fine.
 
Last edited:
  • #309
If I am reading that site correctly, the 2021 statute (originally effective 2020) specifies that an increased basic sentence adding 5 years is applicable when a gun is brandished. It certainly looks like the 5 years will have to be taken off the table for AB, since there's no evidence leading anyone to think he had "intent to intimidate or injure" HH, and he will only be facing 18 months plus a fine.

This is a situation where I have to wonder if some posters are correct when they say Alec is being charged because he is a famous actor. At least in regards to this bogus charge.

Imagine you accidentally shoot someone, no intent to do this on your part. At the time this happens there is a gun enhancement law that adds jail time if you were deliberately brandishing the gun with ill intent.

 Clearly you were not doing so.

Then, several months after you accidentally shoot someone, the enhancement law changes and you now can get 5 years in prison without having brandished the gun with ill intent.

So to put it in just general terms:

You are accused of committing a crime in 2022, then the law changes in 2023, so you are now charged with a more serious 2023 crime even though it wasn't considered a crime back when you committed it in 2022.

Can't do that. Can't charge someone for a crime that they did not commit.
 
  • #310
This is a situation where I have to wonder if some posters are correct when they say Alec is being charged because he is a famous actor. At least in regards to this bogus charge.

Imagine you accidentally shoot someone, no intent to do this on your part. At the time this happens there is a gun enhancement law that adds jail time if you were deliberately brandishing the gun with ill intent.

 Clearly you were not doing so.

Then, several months after you accidentally shoot someone, the enhancement law changes and you now can get 5 years in prison without having brandished the gun with ill intent.

So to put it in just general terms:

You are accused of committing a crime in 2022, then the law changes in 2023, so you are now charged with a more serious 2023 crime even though it wasn't considered a crime back when you committed it in 2022.

Can't do that. Can't charge someone for a crime that they did not commit.
I am not sure it’s because AB is a famous actor. It could be.

I do think they are making an example of this case. Kind of like when a city has a terrible intersection that everyone complains about as dangerous, and when someone gets killed, they finally do something, install signals, etc.

They are going after the poorly enforced safety practices of the industry.

AB is the perfect poster child. Recognizable.
If he goes to jail, people will pay attention.

jmo
 
  • #311
I am not sure it’s because AB is a famous actor. It could be.

I do think they are making an example of this case. Kind of like when a city has a terrible intersection that everyone complains about as dangerous, and when someone gets killed, they finally do something, install signals, etc.

They are going after the poorly enforced safety practices of the industry.

AB is the perfect poster child. Recognizable.
If he goes to jail, people will pay attention.

jmo
Good point. More about the poor confusing conflicting industry standard for gun safety than about Alec.

Unknown if an unknown actor would be charged the same as Alec if the actor was also producer.

Isn't Alec really being charged because he is a producer?
 
  • #312
Isn't Alec really being charged because he is a producer?
It's mentioned in the charging document, but I didn't get the impression it preempted his actions/responsibility as an actor who fired the gun. I suspect they still would have charged him if he hadn't been a producer, but that's just me. MOO
 
  • #313
If I am reading that site correctly, the 2021 statute (originally effective 2020) specifies that an increased basic sentence adding 5 years is applicable when a gun is brandished. It certainly looks like the 5 years will have to be taken off the table for AB, since there's no evidence leading anyone to think he had "intent to intimidate or injure" HH, and he will only be facing 18 months plus a fine.
Thanks for weighing in.. can you show the section where you believe the statute in effect at the time (2021) looks like 5 years? To me, it says 3 years (5 years for a second offence) here in item A: (the 5 years is shown in item B for second/subsequent offence)

This is from the 2021 version (first one listed in my post above) in the enhanced (alteration of basic) sentence portion:

A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by three years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by one year.

In any case, 2021 definitely seems to include the 'brandish' definition for each of the three enhanced sentence reasons, which doesn't fit in this case according to their own definitions.

It seems they have greatly modified the statute's enhanced sentencing portion in 2022, to remove the 'brandish' word if a gun is discharged, and increase it to five years.... but surely they can't even think that would stick if the offence occurred months before the change? Perhaps at least some of the 2022 changes came as a result of this event?

Just as a note, I can't see the word 'mandatory', as we had been also led to believe (via media)? Or is that presumed when it says 'shall be'?
 
Last edited:
  • #314
Good point. More about the poor confusing conflicting industry standard for gun safety than about Alec.

Unknown if an unknown actor would be charged the same as Alec if the actor was also producer.

Isn't Alec really being charged because he is a producer?
The DA has said she's trying to get him both as an actor, and as a producer. But I don't see how that could even be seriously considered by a jury/judge, considering none of the other producers/directors/owners/management/whatever were charged from that perspective. How can they single out just one of them? Yes, he was the unfortunate actor who happened to handle a gun that was supposed to be 'cold', when the armorer herself had instead loaded it with a live round, but if they wanted to charge him as producer/owner/management, then I would think they should have included a few more decision-makers - there was certainly more than one/AB, and/or charged the corporation and its officers/whatever. imo.

"He was the actor that pulled the trigger so certainly he's charged as an actor but also as a producer," Carmack-Altwies said.

"He also had a duty to make sure that the set was safe and we know from our investigation that there had been accidental misfires prior to this."

The prosecutor said investigators discovered "there were people complaining about safety on set." Baldwin, she added, "should have been aware that safety was an issue ... And then, as an actor that day, he should have checked that gun, checked those projectiles."

CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said he was stunned by the decision to charge Baldwin both as actor and producer -- which are "completely different factual and legal scenarios."

"The question about a producer — that gets into the questions of what exactly was Alec Baldwin's job, what were his responsibilities," Honig said. "And look, sometimes people are producers in name ... but are not actually in charge of things in a hands-on way."


Why Alec Baldwin was charged over 'Rust' shooting, according to Santa Fe district attorney
 
  • #315
It's mentioned in the charging document, but I didn't get the impression it preempted his actions/responsibility as an actor who fired the gun. I suspect they still would have charged him if he hadn't been a producer, but that's just me. MOO
I wonder if they would've charged, say, AB's stuntman/double, if it had been him who'd handled the live weapon instead of AB and a similar/same tragedy had occurred? My bet is 'no', but they still would've charged AB as 'producer'. imo. And I agree, if AB had simply been an actor and not a 'producer', my bet is they would have charged him then, as well.
 
  • #316
Thanks for weighing in.. can you show the section where you believe the statute in effect at the time (2021) looks like 5 years? To me, it says 3 years (5 years for a second offence) here in item A: (the 5 years is shown in item B for second/subsequent offence)

This is from the 2021 version (first one listed in my post above) in the enhanced (alteration of basic) sentence portion:

A. When a separate finding of fact by the court or jury shows that a firearm was brandished in the commission of a noncapital felony, the basic sentence of imprisonment prescribed for the offense in Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 shall be increased by three years, except that when the offender is a serious youthful offender or a youthful offender, the sentence imposed by this subsection may be increased by one year.

In any case, 2021 definitely seems to include the 'brandish' definition for each of the three enhanced sentence reasons, which doesn't fit in this case according to their own definitions.

It seems they have greatly modified the statute's enhanced sentencing portion in 2022, to remove the 'brandish' word if a gun is discharged, and increase it to five years.... but surely they can't even think that would stick if the offence occurred months before the change? Perhaps at least some of the 2022 changes came as a result of this event?

Just as a note, I can't see the word 'mandatory', as we had been also led to believe (via media)? Or is that presumed when it says 'shall be'?

My point was that, the applicable standard at the time for increasing the basic sentence was brandishing - and since AB wasn't brandishing (ie, acting with "intent to intimidate or injure"), the increase (of any amount) was inapplicable.

Yes, it said 3 (not 5) was the addition for brandishing. I didn't bother to look at that closely, since an increase of any amount would be inapplicable to AB case.

Assuming we aren't missing something, and I don't see what that would be, then ...

My guess is that this occurred because LE did it inadvertently, and will say, "Oops, our mistake" and not object to the modification requested by the defense motion. There was nothing to be gained for them here to have used an inapplicable section of law as part of the charge.
 
  • #317
May I ask a question and I want to make it clear I am not from USA, so have no idea regarding your gun laws etc. Why was there live ammunition in or around a film set? To me, this would be a place of work, so, why would you have live guns or ammunition in your place of work?
 
  • #318
May I ask a question and I want to make it clear I am not from USA, so have no idea regarding your gun laws etc. Why was there live ammunition in or around a film set? To me, this would be a place of work, so, why would you have live guns or ammunition in your place of work?
Excellent question. Another "industry safety rule" with no enforcement mechanism is that there should be no ammunition on the "set" (an ambiguous term itself when dealing with location filming.) LE has shown a remarkable lack of interest in how the live round not only got onto the location, but also into the weapon and in the "next to fire" position in the cylinder setting. We don't have the numbers (and probably never will have, given the almost total lack of record keeping among all involved) but if you make some guesstimates based on the the number of actors requiring gunbelts and bandoliers, etc., you get a pretty low probability that the the round made that trip by a series of unintentional acts by multiple individuals. Not impossibly low, but low enough IMHO to seriously suspect agency somewhere along the line.

As far as the general New Mexico law and custom about where you may or may not take a loaded weapon, I'll let somebody else explain that :)
 
  • #319
  • #320
ADMIN REMINDER:

Discussing guns as it relates directly to this case, that is fine but general gun control discussion is not allowed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
2,653
Total visitors
2,754

Forum statistics

Threads
632,226
Messages
18,623,736
Members
243,061
Latest member
Kvxbyte
Back
Top