, new r,lex i co to law enforc'ement agencies) rape ...to law enforc'ement agencies) rape...
TRANSCRIPT
''''
,"
----""'I"""'!',~'_fr-""--------------------~;~ 8 ~
')
~.
Rt:PORTING OF SEXUAL ASSAULT v
IN /, NEW r,lEX I co
TO LAW ENFORC'EMENT AGENCIES) RAPE CRISIS CENTERS
AND COURT DISPOSITIONS OF CASES
1977
BY
Jane Foraker-Thompson Chief Planner
Planning and Research Division Ne~ Mexico State Police Department
Revised, January 1978
Currently: , Proj ec t Manager New ~·1exico Restitution Project
Criminal Justice Department 113 Washington Avenue
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501 (505),827-5222
(. '
~
./
" V <:
. ()
o
. !
.- .. ~
If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.
".'--;"/ i
REPORTING OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN NEW NEXICO I J.'"
TO LAW ENFORCEHENT AGENCIES, RAPE CRISIS CENTERS AND COURT DISPOSITIONS OF CASES
1977
by
Jane Foraker-Thompson Chief Planner
Planning and Research Division New Nexico State Police Department
Revised, January 1978
REPORTING OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN NEW NEXICO
N'CJRS
JUN 1 8 1979
ACQUISITIONS
The F.B~I. statistics for 1976 indicated that the rate of reported rape nationally was 26.4 per 100,000 population. In New Nexico during 1976 it was 40.5 per 100,000. In Bernalillo County it was 67.4 per 100,000 and in Santa Fe County it was 70.9 per 100,000 during 1976.
It must be emphasized that these are figures for reported rapes. Reporting goes up with the existence of a Rape Crisis C~nter in a community, improved public awareness and ~ducation of the nature of the crime, sensitive handling of the victim by law enforcement officers, hospital staff, improved prosecution by district attorneys, etc. In other words, these horrendous figures are undoubtedly an indication of improved attention and handling of the victims of the crime, collection of evidence, and a general change in social attitudes as reflected by juries and judges.
In the counties mentioned there are well establiShed Rape Crisis Centers that have established working relations with local law enforcement agencies, hospitals, the district attorney's office and various other human service agencies. Rape Crisis Counselors also act as client advocates to see them through the crim~nal justice system, especially the necessary interviews by police detectives and the usually grueling trial process. This protection and support of the victim encourages reporting and cooperation with the criminal justice agencies.
These established Rape Crisis Centers, once they have gained the confidence of the women in the community, find that eventually women come forward to seek counseling about rape that occurred months, and even years ago. This shows that women are s,till ashamed or afraid to report the fact that they have been victims of rape. They often are most afraid of the reaction of their husbands, boyfriends or immediate family. It is encouraging that they are deciding to seek out the help they need to work their fear, anger, and false sense of guilt that society used to impose on victims.
However, the more help a victim is given, the greater the reporting. The crime of rape has been around a long tirne. It usually occurs in more densely populated areas and in cultures where there is less respect for women as human beings. However, if the rate of rape by counties throughout New Nexico is studied, it can be seen that
I ~
:J '"
the rate of reporting has gone up considerably in every county that has a Rape Crisis Center, or a Nental Health facility or some other general crisis intervention facility that also deals with rape victims. This does not mean that the number of rapes has increased, but only that the rate of reporting it is closer to the actual occurrence of the crime.
The F.B.I. estimates that nationally, only one tenth of the rapes committed are reported. Dr. Joanne Sterling, Assistant Director of the Bernalillo County Mental Health Center and a member of the national Rape Prevention and Control Advisory Committee, sponsored by the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, reports that New Mexico has some of the best treatment for rape victims (centered around the Rape Crisis Centers) in the nation. Therefor.e, our reporting rate, instead of being only 10% of the rapes that actually occur, is probably closer to 70-80% of those that actually occur; perhaps even higher in those cities where intervention ort behalf of the victim is especially strong. These statistics, though disturbing, indicate a more honest and accurate count and recognition of the problem than in many states.
In New Mexico is the added benefit of the rape evidence collection kits that are used by the doctol"s at the hospit~als to collect the evidence from the victim. This is in addition to what police officers collect from the scene of the crime. In recent months the State Police Crime Laboratory has received more cases with all the standards of evidence necessary for analysis sufficient to give to the district attorney to make a solid case. This was not true in the past. This improved collection of evidence by law enforcement officers and the hospital can be attributed to improved training and cooperation between agencies.
This brings out another benefit, but of no less significance, produced by the presence of a Rape Crisis Center in a community. The Center serves as a vehicle to educate the public about the nature of the crime and the physical and emotional trauma that a victim suffers. It helps to change social attitudes, which in turn allows the services to develop that are needed. It also serves as a vehicle to develop inter-agency cooperation and understanding among all those that deal with a rape victim--law enforcement, hospital emergency room personnel, the State Police Crime Laboratory that analyzes the evidence, district attorney's office, and in some cases, other human service agencies 'as well.
Therefore, even though the statistics of reported rape in New Mexico are way above the national rate, it is also true that the rate of reporting is way above the national average. New Mexico has accomplished two important objectives: 1) Victims in key cities receive excellent intervention, which includes counseling, medical treatment, and support in the process of assisting the district attorney's office with prosecution; 2) With increased reporting, community support and awareness, the publicity seems to have started a deterrent effect. Even with a high rate of reporting that is close to the actual occurrence, the rate of reported rape in Ne~v Mexico seems to be taking a dip in 1977 for the first time. This is a result of concerted community education and inter-agency cooperation, with the Rape Crisis Centers acting as the hub of the wheel of effort that began in New Mexico in 1972-1973. Five years later we are beginning to see the results of these efforts.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1977 is the first year that we have statewide reporting from the Rape Crisis Centers and other human service agencies that also offer assistance to rape victims. This reporting is probably not complete but it gives us a basis to begin to better analyze the extent of the need so that we may begin to plan services to assist victims return to normal, healthy lives.
The last appendixes on Origin of Case, Disposition, and Type of Sentence also exhibit a first for the State of New Mexico. This information was provided by the Office of the Court Administrator. It is the first time we have had statewide reporting on court dispositions on sexual assault cri'ltles.
Due to a shortage of time, and because we wanted to make this information available to the second session of the Thirty-Third Legislature (1978), no analysis of the court reported information has been included in this paper. However, the information is there for people to work with themselves. It at least describes what situation exists in each judicial district.
The court information does not include all the cases that are brought to each District Attorney's Office. It is the responsibility of the District Attorney's Office to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to bring a case to trial. Sometimes a victim will decide not to prosecute before the case is ever filed. Sometimes a victim will wish to prosecute but the alleged offender can not be found or identified. In summary, the district attorneys work with many cases on a preliminary basis that never get to court. We hope that by next year we will also have a statewide report on the workload of district attorney's offices that involve sexual assault, as well as all other crimes.
APPtl'OIX A, page 1
RAT! OF REPORTED SEXUAL ASS.\uLT tN NEI.' MEXICO
City and Councy Tables 1911 1972 197:3 1974 1973 1976
Populacion 329,300.0 339,500.0 354,400.0 358,200.0 365,200.0 376,600.0 aernalillo County 36.0 55.0 37.0 26.0 38.0 62.0 University of New Mexico 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 Albuquerque (city) 103.0 154.0 169.0 183.0 l81.0 186.0 Stace PoUce 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
County Total 139.0 209.0 206.0 :109.0 220.0 254.0 Race per 100,000 oODulation 42.2 61. 6 58.1 58.3 60.2 67.4
Population 2,200.0 2,200.0 2,200.0 '2,500.0 2,100.0 2,100.0 Catron Councy 1.0 0.0 : 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Rate per 100,000 populacion 45.0 0.0 90.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Population 4'~"00.0 46,400.0 • 46,400.0 46,"00.0 48,200.0 49,400.0 Chaves County 5.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 aceweU (city) 6.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 2.0
County Tocal 11.0 4.0 5.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 Rate per 100,000 populacion 24.2 8.6 10.8 ~." 2.1 8.1
Population 1.2,100.0 1.2,100.0 12,400.0 12,800.0 12,900.0 13.000.0 Colfax County 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 !!.aton (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 Springer (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 State Police 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
County Total 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 4.0 Rata per 100,000 population 0.0 24.8 0.0 7.8 38.7 30.8
Population 41..,500.0 40,900.0 42,800.0 42,800.0 43,200.0 44,700.Q Cuny Councy 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Clovis (city) 8.0 4.0 8.0 17.0 10.0 10.0
County Tocal 8.0 '--4.0 11.0 18.0 10.0 10.0 !!.ace per 100,000 populatiCtl 19.3 9.8 25.7 42.1 23.1 22.4
Population 2~!iOO.0 2~500.0, 2,800.0 2,700.0 2,600.0 2,500.0 De Baca Councy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Population 71.300.0 73.600.0 74,500.0 77.500.0 80,000.0 82,000.0 Dona ADa County 6.0 9.0 S.O 6.0 8.0 9.0 La. Cruces (city) 4.0 8.0 ,9.0 11.0 10.0 8.0 MecUla 0.0 0.0 ,0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 New Mexico State University 1.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0
County Total 11.0 17.0 16.0 19.0 21.0 18.0 Rate pel' 100,000 populacion 15.4 23.1 21.5 24.5 26.3 22.0
Population 40,900.0 40.900.0 41.200.0 41,500.0 42,400.0 43,000.0 Eddy Coul1cy 1.0 3.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 Are .. b (cicy) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 Carlsbad (cicy) 1.0 2.0 11.0 6.0 2.0 1.0
County Toeal 2.0 5.0 12.0 9.0 4.0 9.0 Rate per 100,000 populacion 4.9 1.2.2 29.1 21.7 9.4 20.9
Population 22.500.0 22.600.0 23,800.0 23,800.0 24.600.0 23,700.0 Grant County 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 aayard (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Silver City (city) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 _J'& 1.0
County Tocal 2.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 late par 100,000 popula.tion 8.9 0.0 4.3 8.4 16.3 16.9
Population 4.900.0 4.900.0 4,700. a 4.900.0 4,900.0 5.100.0 Guadalupe County 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 San" acee (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0
County To tal 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Rate per 100,000 population 0.0 20.4 21.3 20.4 0.0 0.0
Population 1.300.0 1,300.0 1,300.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,300.0 Rudin, County 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Population 4.600.0 4,600.0 4,700.0 5,400.0 5,700.0 5,300.0 lIiclalgo County 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 Lorcl.burl (city) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 _.2.:..Q.
County Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 bte per 100,000 populacion 21.7 21.7 21.3 55.6 70.2 0.0
A1'PENOtX I\Z 24 3. 2
City and County Totals 1971 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916
PopulAtion 49,600.0 49,400.0 48,800.0 49,800.0 51,200.0 53,000.0 Laa County 3.0 4.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 4.0 Euni.:. (dey) O.Q 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Hobb. (city) 3.0 0.0 10.0 7.0 4.0 8.0 Jd (city) 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lovington (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0
County Total 6.0 4.0 13.0 11.0 13.0 13.0 Rate per 100,000 population 12.1 8.1 26.6 22.1 25.4 24.5
Population 1,800.0 8,000.0 8,400.0 9,300.0 9,500.0 9,200.0 Lincoln County 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 Ruidoso (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
County Total 0.0 5.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Race per 100,000 populoltion 0.0 62.5 0.0 U.S 42.1 32.6
Population 1.5 ,400.0 15.400.0 15.400.0 15.500.0 15.900.0 16.BOO.0 1.0& Alamos County 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0. Alalll<)s (dty) 2.0 La 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
County Total 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 Rate par 100.000 populaeion 12.9 6.5 0.0 12.9 0.0 0.0
Population 12.200.0 12.500.0 13.100.0 13.700.0 14.500.0 14.900.0 Luna County 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Deming (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0
Couney To:al 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 Rata p.~ 100.000 population 0.0 0.0 7.6 14.6 27.6 20.1
Population 44.700.0 46.BOO.0 49,300.0 48,800.0 51.200.0 51.600.0 Mclt1nley Couney 12.0 0.0 7.0 9.0 16.0 14.0 c..!lup (city) 5.0 8.0 !l.0 9.0 12.0 11.0 Zuni (city) 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
County To tal lB.O 9.0 20.0 IB.O 28.0 25.0 Rata llu 100,000 population 40.3 19.'- 40.6 36.9 54.7 48.4
Population 4,600.0 4,500.0 4,600.0 4,BOO.0 4,900.0 4,200.0 !!ora Couney 2.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 (1.0 1.0 Wagon Hound (ciey) 0.0 0.0 0.0 l.0 0.0 0.0
County Total 2.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 Rata per 100,000 population 43.5 0.0 86.9 20.8 0.0 23.8
Populaeion 41,900.0 41,100.0 41,500.0 42,200.0 42,700.0 43,800.0 Otero County 4.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 Alamogordo (city) 0.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 3.0 !Ie.calero (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 l.0 0.0
County Total 4.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 7.0 6.0 Rata per 100,000 population 9.5 14.6 12.0 9.5 16.4 13.7
Popul.ation 11.300.0 11,000.0 11.100.0 11,200.0 11,400.0 11,800.0 QUAY County 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tucumcari (city) 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0
County Toeal 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 RAta per 100,000 population B.S 9.1 18.0 0.0 0.0 16.9
Population 2.5,BOO.0 26,000.0 26,600.0 27,400.0 28,000.0 29,100.0 Rio Arriba County 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 6.0 1.0 Espanola (city) 0.0 4.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 1.0 5 tate Police 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.0
County Total 3.0 4.0 6.0 1.0 9.0 12.0 Rate per 100,000 population 11.6 15.4 22.6 3.6 32.1 41.2
Population 16.700.0 16,800.0 16.S00.0 17.100.0 16,300.0 17,500.0 ao.avele County 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Portales (city) 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 1.0
County Toeal 0.0 0.0 --0:0 2.0 0.0 2.0 lata par 100,000 population 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0.0 11.4
Population 14,600.0 14,300.0 20.000.0 22,400.0 22.600.0 25,000.0 5&Ddoval County 2.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 S.O 7.0 Bernalillo (city) 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Corrales (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 l.0
County Total 3.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 6.0 8.0 Rata per 100,000 popUlation 16.1 0.0 28.8 13.4 26.5 32.0
Population 53,500.0 55,400.0 58,800.0 &1,400.0 65,300.0 65,000.0 San Juan CQUrlty 0.0 2.0 2.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 Aztec (city) 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 Bloo=field (city) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Farmington (city) 3.0 12.0 5.0 10.0 16.0 l.0 5 tat e Police 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1l.0
County Total 4.0 14.0 1.0 13.0 20.0 18.0 Rata per 100,000 population 7.S 25.3 11.9 21. 2. 30.6 27.7
Papulation 22,100.0 23,200.0 23,800.0 23,400.0 23,500.0 23,500.0 San Migual County 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 L.a. Vegaa (city) 6.0 8.0 3.0 10.0 14.0 6.0 Stat. Po li'ce 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0
County Toeal 1.0 10.0 4.0 10.0 16.0 9.0 Race per 100,000 popUlation 31.7 43.S 16.8 42.7 Sa.1 38.3
1971
PopulaClon 49.600.0 ~.a Couney 3.0 Ewnica (city) 0.0 Koob. (cit,) 3.0 Jd (city) 0.0 Lovington (city) 0.0
County !oeal 0.0 l&t~ ?4~ 100,000 populaeion 12.1
i'opulacion Li:co1n Counc.1' R.uidoso (city)
Couney 1'oeal 1ac. ,4r 100,000
PopulaeioQ Loa ,ualllC. Counc,! Loa ,uOLClCS (cicy)
CoWlCy 1'oc.;&l lac. p4r 100.000
PopLoJ.acioo Lw:ta Couoey Ou.i.ull (ciey)
CoW:r:,' Tocal tata p4r 100,000
?opalauoo MclCJ.a.ley County Galll.lll (dey) Zwli (dty)
County To cal
7.300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
populaeion 0.0
1',400.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
populacioQ 12.9
12.200.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
populacio'l O. a
44,700.0 U.O ".0
_--hQ.
~c. par 100,00U population 18.0 40.3
POljlula1:ioo !!Dra Coun ty ~.son ~ugd (city)
COUII.r:,' To cal ~c. per 100,000
POllulatiQQ Oearo COatir:,' Alamolorao (cicy) Me.cal.~o (ciey)
Coomcy Iotal Raca par 100,000
Populacion. Qua)' Councy Tucumcari (ciey)
Cow:tcy To cal Rat. pa~ 100.000
Population Ilia Aniba Couaey Eall&Dola (tiey) SCat .• Police
COWley Toe'll Rae. par 100,000
l'opular:ioo lIeaavall: CountY l'oreal .. (cicy)
Councy Tocal Rac. par 100,000
POlluJ.&cioo SUldo".l County ler=alillo (ciey) Conal •• (cicy)
Cowlt.y Toul aaca per 100,000
p;;p;ilacion Soan Juan CoUMY Azc.c (city) 3100mfield (city) PIr:1=gcon (city) Stac. ?oUel
Councy fatal aate per 100,000
!'Ollulacion San lUgual Ccunty t.aa '/41&1 (c1:y) Sc.atl Pol!ca
County rucd RACe ~.: 100.000
..... - ... -- ..
4,600.0 2.0 0.0 2.0
PQPul~cion 43.S
41,900.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0
populacioQ 9.S
U,300.0 0.0 1.0 1.0
~opulat1oo 8.8
2.5 ,800.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 J.O
popul';&l:ion 11.&
l6,700.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
populacion 0.0
18,600.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 3.0
pOllulaeioa 16.1
.53.500.0 0.0 L.O 0.0 3.0 0.0 4.0
POllulal:ion 7.S
22.100.0 1.0 6.0 0.0 7.0
popul~tion 31.7
1972
49,400.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 3.1
5.000.0 S.O 0.0 --r:o
62.S
15,400.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 6.S
12.S00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
46,800.0 0.0 8.0 1.0 9.0
19.2
4,SOO.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
41,100.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 &.0
14.6
1l.000.0 0.0 1.0
26,000.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0
lS.4
1,6,800.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
14,300.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
55,400.0 2.0 0.0 0.0
12.0 0.0
2J.~OO.O 2.0 8.0 0.0
10.0 43.5
197J 1974
43,BOO.0 49,aOO.0 2.0 4.0 0.0 0.0
10.0 7.0 1.0 0.0
__ .,.:O~.~O __ .,.:0;W'c:;0 1:1.0 1l.O 25.6 22 • .1
3,400.0 9,JOO.0 0.0 0.0
__ ~O;':".;:.O_ 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 21.S
l5,400.0 L~,SOO.O '. 0.1l 0.0
__ ...:;0;,.:..,;1l __ ..,2;,:.c:;O 0.0 2.0 0.0 l2.9
13,100.0 13,700.0 1.0 1.0
__ -,0:,:, • .:::.0 __ -=1..:.,. 0:::-1.0 2.0' 7.6 14.6
49,300.0 48,800.0 7.0 9.0
ll.0 9.0 __ ...".;:2..:.,. 0::. __ --,,~O..:;. 0::-
20.0 18.0 40.6 36.9
4,600.0 4,800.0 4.0 0,0
__ .....;::0..:.,. 0:;. ___ .;1..:.,. 0:::-4.0 1.0
86.9 20.5
4l,500.0 42.200.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.0
__ ...:;O~'';O __ -,1~.~0 3.0 4.0
12.0 9.S
11.100.0 11,200.0 1.0 0.0
__ -:1;.:, • .::.0 __ ...:;O~',,::-O 2.0 0.0
18.0 0.0
~6,600.0 47,400.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 1.0
__ -,0;.,: • .".0 __ ...:O~.~O 6.0 1.0
22.6 3.6
1&.300.0 17,100.0 0.0 0.0
__ ..;6;.:.,. 0: __ -:2:.: • ..::-0 0.0' 2.0 0.0 11.7
20,000.0 22.400.0 6.0 2.0 0.0 1.0
__ ...:;O:,:,,~O __ ~O;":"';O 6.0 J.O
28.8 13.4
S8,800.0 61.400.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5. a 10.0
__ -,0-":;.0 __ ,.:0;":",;0 i.O 13.0
11.9 21.2
ZJ,dOO.O 23,400.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 10.0
__ -,0;":,.,,.0 __ .,.:O~'''::-O 10.0 10.0
16.8 42.7
1975
31..200.0 6.0 0.0 4.0 (J,O 3.0
1:1,0 2S.4
9.500.0 2.0 2.0 4.0
42.1
lS.900.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
l4,.500.0 2.0 ~.O
4.0 27.6
51.200.0 16.0 12.0 0.0
28.0 S.~. 7
4,900.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
42.700.0 1.0 5.0
_..1:..:..Q. 7.0
16.4
11,4,00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
28.000.0 6.0 J.O 0.0 9.0
32.1
16,)00.~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22,600.0 5.0 0.0 l.0 6.0
26.S
65,300.0 2.0 L.O l.0
16.0 0.0
20.0 30.6
23.500.0 l.O
14.0 0.0
16.0 68.1
1976
53.000.0 4.0 1.0 S.O 0.0 0.0
1:1.0 24. S
9,200.0 1.0 2.0 J.a
32.6
15,800.0 0.0
.0.0 0.0 0.0
14.900.0 0.0 3.0 3.0
21').1
51.600.0 14.0 11.0 0.0
25.0 48.4
4,200.0 1.0 0.0 1.0
23.8
43,800.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 6.0
13.7
11,800.0 0.0 2.0 2.0
l6.9
29.100.0 1.0 1.0
10.0 12.0 41.2
11,500.0 1.0 l.0 2.0
U.4
25,000.0 7.0 0.0 1.0 8.0
32.0
65,000.0 1.0 5.0 0.0 1.0
11.0 18.0 27.7
23.500.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 9.0
38.3
~!;, ASSAULT BY COUNTY. "I£W MEXICO - 1977
FORCED ATIEMPTEr RATE PER '. courny SEXUAL ASSAULT SEXUAL ASSA~~!J TOTAL POPULATION 100.000
Berna11110 201 28 229 382,200 59.9
Catron 0 0 0 2,100 0
Chaves .. 1 5 50,500 9.9
Co'lfax 2 0 2 13~200 15.2
Curry 7 1. 8 45,500 17.6
De Baca 0 0 0 2,500 0
Dona Ana 22 2 24 83,600 28.7
Eddy 9 0 9 43,900 20.,5
G'rant 1 0 1 24,300 4.1
Guadalupe 2 0 2 5,100 39.2
Harding 0 0 0 1,300 0
Hidalgo 1 0 1 5,400 18.5
Lea 14 2 16 54,100 29.6
Lincolr. 0 0 0 9,600 0
Los Alamos 2 0 2 17,300 11.6
Luna 2 0 2 15,600 12.8 -~1cKinley 26 4 30 52,800 56.8
Mora 0 0 0 4,100 0
Otero 6 0 6 44,600 13.5
Quay 1 0 1 12,000 8.3
Rio Arriba 2 0 2 29,800 6.7
Roosevelt 2 0 2 17,800 11.2
Sandoval 1 0 1 26,400 3.8
San Juan 21 1 22 66,300 33.2
San Miguel 4 2 6 23,800 25.2
Santa Fe 39 5 44 64,700 68.0
Sierra 3 2 .. ~. 5 8,100 61.8
Socorro 2 0 2 9,300 21.5
.Taos 4 1 5 19,900 25.1
Torrance 0 0 0 7,000 0
Union 0 0 0 5,000 a Valencia 5 2 7 48.500 14.4
STATE TOTAL 383 51 434 1,196.300 36.3
SOURCE: Population Estimate for 1977 from flew ~lexico Population to 1~~ Tr.:pact on Job OutlQok. by John L. Temple. Bureau and Economic Research. Univer:;ity of Ne~1 Hexico. April, 1976. p. 21.
1977. flew MelCico State Police. includes . Crime figures from Uniform Crime Reoort. law enforcement a9~ncy reportin~ only.
;;- ;---
. • t .
:Total Cases . Report.ed To Law
" . Enfo~ement.
STATE 434
JUOICIAL DISTRICT
1st Santa Fe. Rio Friba': Los Alamos" 48
~ Bernal ill0 229 . -~ Dona Ana 24
4th San r~i9uel~ I P.Ora, Guada 1 upe 3
St~ Chaves, Eddy· tN' - 30 - "
6th Grant. Luna I Hidalgo" 4 I 7th Socorro' Sierra I ~ron, Torrance 7
-8th Taos, Union, I torfax 7 i m Roo!ievl!lt~ Curry 10
10th Oe Baca. Quayt Harding, 1
--11th ~tcJ(inley, SM\Juiln 52
~ Otero. Lincoln 6
13:h Valencia-Saiido'lal· 8
1977 CASES REPORTED TO LAIl EIIFORCEMEMT & VICTIM TREAT11ENT WITERS
-Tot.al Known ,
Cases Reported " To RCC. ~IHC. Ct. KIIOWII VICTIM ASSISTAIICE FACtUTIES
709 19 fa~ilities, 14 counties have no facilities ~f any kind
. Santa Fe Rape Crisis Cente~ (Santa Fe)
96 Los Alamos Family Council. Inc. (Los Alamos) Espanola RCC closed door for ldCk, of funds (Rio Arriba)
4SS Albuquerque Rape Crisis Center (Bernalillo)
23 Southwest Community Mental Health Center, Las Cruees,(Dona Ana)
14 Bridge Crisis Center. Las Vegas (San Miguel) No facilities in I~ora or Guadalupe Counties
Cha~es,County Hental He~lth Services, Roswell (Chaves) crisis line • 7 not specific for Ra~e Crisis Center
Artesia Hotline & Carls~ad Hotline (9~neral) (Eddy)Lea County Crisis Bridge Line, Silver City (Grant) Deming Crisis Center (Luna)
8 No facilities in Hidalgo County "
. 0 No facilities in Socorro. Sierra, Catron or Torrance Counties
COmmunity Against Rape (C.A.R.) (Taos) " 16 No facilities in Union or Colfax Counties
10 Hcntal IIcaltl! Resources offices in Clo\·is (Curry) and Portal es (Roose~~lt) but no specific Rape Crisis Center capability in 1971 Raoe Cri~;s Service Clovi~ 'ICurrv)
Mcntal Health Resources office in Tucumcari (Quay) but no 1 facilities in OeBaca or Harding Counties
Gallup Rape Crisis Ccnter (HcKinley) have not reported 49 San Juan Mental Health (San Juan)
0 Counseling Center. AlamogordO (Otero), (Crisis L1iie.i Have tlot reported I PIt) facfi'ity In Lincoln Countv
Grants Counselin9 Service (Valencia) Have not reported 0 110 facilIty in Sandoval County
,.
,
. .
% Of Cases Reported To Rape Crisis Cen~ers
OVer Those Reported To Law Enforcement.
+ 63.4 .
+100.0
+111.8
- 4.2
+ 75.0
- 76.7
, +100.0
0
+128.6
1 .
-S"me .). b
" .f' ;J~ "
.,'
. 5.8 ,
0
0
'. Incomplete reporting (or 1917 (rom Law Enrorcement RCC • Rape Crisis Center MHC • Mental Health Center CL • Crisis Line (general) known as Hotll~es
01" Bridge Lines
I APPENDIX OJ page 1
PROGRAM NO. CARP090 COURT INFORMATION SYSTEM CURRENT DATE 01/26/78 CASE ORIGIN STATEWIDE CRIMINAL CASES 1977
CATEGORY MAGISTRATE MUNICIPAL PRELIMINARY CHANGE SUBCATEGORY APPEALS APPEALS APPEALS HEARING OF VENUE TOTAL
STATEWIDE SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 1 S9 14 33 107 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0
~ TOTAL 0 1 59 14 33 107 FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, Los A~,amoa)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 1 14 0 3 18 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTA\. 0 1 14 0 3 IS
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Bernalillo) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 26 1 2 29 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 26 1 2 29
THIRD JUDI~IAL DIST~ICT (Dona Ana) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 0 0 7 7 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0
_:I0TAL 0 0 0 0 7 7 FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (San Miguel, Mot'a, Guadalupe) SEXUAl. OFF£NSES
FELONIES 0 0 4 0 0 4 I MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 4 0 0 4
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Chaves, Eddy, Lea) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 0 0 IS IS MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 15 15
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Grant, Luna, Hidalgo) SEXUN'.OFFENSES
FELvdIES 0 0 0 0 1 1 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 1 1
SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Socorro, Sierra, Catron, Torrance) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES • 0 0 0 1 3 4 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 1 3 4
EIG!lTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Taos, Union, Colfax)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 0 7 0 0 7 mSDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 7 0 0 7
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Roosevelt, Curry) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 3 0 0 3 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 3 0 0 3
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (DeBaca, Quay, Harding)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 0
ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (McKinley, San Juan)
SEXUAL !')FFENSES FELONIES 0 0 0 12 1 13 MISDEMANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 12 1 13
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Otero, Lincoln)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 0 :: 0 I 3 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 2 0 1 3
TIIIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Valencia, Sandoval)
SEXUAL OFFENStS FELONIES 0 0 3 0 0 3 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 3 0 0 3
COUR~ INFORMATION SYSTEM PROGRAM NO. CARP050 STATEWIDE TYPE OF DISPOSITION
DISMISSAL CATEGORY FAILURE TO OrnER CRANGE GUILTY/ CIIARGES
SUBCATEGORY PROSECUTE DISMISSAL OF VENUE NOLO PLEA DROPPED
STATEWIDE
SEXUAL QFFENSES FELONES .5 13 1 36 13 MISDEMEANORS 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 5 14 1 ~6 1~
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Santa Fe, Rio Arriba, Loa AlalDOa)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 0 0 8 4 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 8 4
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT (BernaHllo)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 2 0 10 6 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 Q TOTAL 0 2 0 10 6
THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Dona Ana)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 4 0 0 3 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 T01'AL 4 0 0 3 0
FOURTH JUDICIAL D!§TRICT (San Miguel, Hora, Guadalupe)
SEXU~ OFFENSES FELONIES Q 0 0 0 0 MISDIi.ME.ANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAt 0 0 0 0 0
FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Chaves, Eddy, Lea)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 I 0 7 3 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1 0 7 3
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Grant, Luna, Hidalgo) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELQNIES 0 0 0 0 0 MISDEKr • NORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0
SEVENTH JUDIClAL DISTRICT (Socorro, Sierra, Catron, Tonance) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 1 0 0 O' MISDEMEANGRS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1 0 0 0
EIGHTH JUDIClAL DISTRICT (Taos, Union, Colfax) !lEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 3 0 0 0 MISDEMEANCP.5 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 4 0 0 0
NINTH JUDIClAL DISTRICT (Roosevelt, Curry) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 2 0 1 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 1 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 3 0 1 0
TENTH JUDIClAL DISTIRCT (DeBaca, Quay, Harding) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 0 0 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0
ELEVENTH JUDIClAL DISTRICT (McKinley, San Juan) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 4 0 6 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 4 0 6 0
!WELTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Otaro, Lincoln) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 1 0 1 0 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 0 1 0 0
rniRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Valencia. Sandoval)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 0 0 1 0 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 0 0 1 0
GUILTY VERDICT
I .
9 0 9
2 0 2
0 0 0
0 0 0
I 0 1
4 0 4
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
I a 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 1
0 0 0
APPENDIX E. eal- ,\
CUR~ENT DATE 01/25/78 CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS 12/31/77
NOT GUILTY fNSANITY MISTRIAL VERDICT VERDICT HUNG JlmY TOTAL
4 0 0 81 1 0 0 2 5 0 0 S2
0 0 0 JA. 0 0 0 (}
0 \l 0 10\
2 0 0 ro 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 200
0 0 0 7 0 0 0 ()
0 0 0 7
0 0 0 1 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 l
0 0 0 15 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 15
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 l 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 l
1 0 0 4 1 0 0 l 2 0 0 5
0 0 0 4-0 0 0 1 0 0 0 S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G
0 0 0 10. 0 -0 0 ()
0 0 0 10
1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 U 0 4
0 0 0 1 I} 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
APPENDIX PI eaSe 1 P~OGRAM NO. CARPI00 COURT I~FORHATION SYSTEM CURRENT DATE 01/25/78 TY~Z OF SENTENC! STATEWIDE -- CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS REPORT YEAR 1977
INCAR- INCAR- INCAR- TOTAL CATEGORY DEFENDANTS CERATION FINE CERATION PROBATION FINE AND DEFERRED HABITUAL DEFENDANTS
SUBCATEGORY TO TRIAL ONLY ONLY AND FINE ONLY PROaATION SENTENCE OFFtNDER SENTENCED
STATEWiDE
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 14 28 1 1 9 5 4 0 4& MISDEMEANORS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 TOTAL 15 28 1 1 9 5 4 0 4a.
FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Santa FI:, Rio Arriba, Loa Ala1llOs)
SEXUAL OFF.ENSES FELONIES 2 7 0 0 0 4 0 0 11 H-'tSDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ()
TotAL 2 7 0 0 0 4 0 0 n SECON!iJUDICIAL DISTRICT (Bernalillo) SEXUAL OFFENSES .
FELONIES 2 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 1Z MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (i
TOTAL 2 6 0 0 6 0 0 0 l7! THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Cona Ana)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Z MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O. 0: TOTAL 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2.
FOURTH JUDtCIAL DISTRICT (S-An Miguel, Mora, Guadalupe)
SEXUAL OFFENSES FELONIES 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q
TOTAL 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 l! FUTH JUDICIAL. DISTRICT (Chaves, Eddy, Lea) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 4 7 0 I 2 0 1 0 II MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a TOTAL 4 7 0 I 2 0 1 0 III
SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Grant, Luna, Hidalgo) Sll'UAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (]', MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' TOTAL 0 0 a .0 a 0 a 0 OJ
SEVE~TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Socorro, Sierra, Catron, Torrance) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 a a a 0 0 0 0 (]'.
MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 TOTAL a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 a
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Taos, Union, Colfax) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONtE!:i I 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 Q\ MISDEMEANORS 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: TOTAL 2 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0> ,
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Roosevelt, Curry) FELONIES 1 I 0 0 a 0 1 0 2. MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, TOTAL 1 I 0 0 0 0 1 0 Z
TENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (DeBaca, Quay, Ha::dina) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONIES 0 0 0 0 0 il 0 0 O· MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL a 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 ()o ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DIS'tRICT (McKinley, San Juan) SEXUAL OFFENSES
FELONICS 2 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 & MISDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ii 0: TOTAL 2 5 0 0 0 1 2 0 8'.
TWELFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Otero, Linr.oln) SEXUAL OFFENS~'S
FELONIES 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MlSDEMEANORS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I)
THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT (Valencia Sandoval) SEXUAL OFFENSES
• FELONIES 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 MISDEHEANORS 0 'D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
~
