NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is
intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the
legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume
responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for
other purposes.
The most recent FIR
version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative
Website. The Adobe PDF version includes
all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be
obtained from the LFC in
SPONSOR: |
King |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
547/aHJC |
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Criminal Sexual Penetration Time Limitations |
SB |
|
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Maloy |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
See Narrative |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates SB 470.
Responses Received From
Administrative Offices of the Courts
Office of the Attorney General
Corrections Department
SUMMARY
Synopsis of HJC Amendment
The House Judiciary
Committee has amended House Bill 547 to
broaden the violations to which the bill would apply. In the underlying bill, the violation had to
be of Subsection, D, E or F. With the
HJC amendment, the violation can be of any provision of
Synopsis
of Original Bill
House Bill 547 tolls
the statute of limitations for an alleged second, third or fourth degree sexual
penetration when DNA evidence is available and a suspect has not been
identified.
With this bill, the
applicable time period for commencing a prosecution does not begin to to run until a DNA profile is matched with a suspect.
Significant
Issues
This Act only applies
to an alleged second, third or fourth degree sexual penetration for which the
applicable time period for commencing a prosecution has not expired as of
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
There are little
direct costs associated with HB 547.
There are, however, secondary costs that will inevitably arise out of
the ever-advancing developments in technology and DNA in the law enforcement
arena. These costs will need to be
absorbed by law enforcement agencies and the courts as a routine price of
operation and remaining current and effective.
ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPLICATIONS
Criminals who are
caught years later, whose DNA match DNA taken from victims of these crimes, can
be brought to justice. This may result
in an in the number of individuals brought to trial and convicted. This means a slight increase in FTE and
budget expenditures for such agencies as the Courts, the District Attorneys
Office, the Public Defenders Department, Correctional institutes and parole and
probation offices.
Such prosecutions will
likely be costly due to the fact that much of the evidence will have aged and
the case may not be as easily built as when it was fresh.
OTHER SUBSTANTIVE
ISSUES
1.
Under current law, the statute of limitations for
second-degree criminal sexual penetration (CSP) is 6 years from the time the
crime was committed. See NMSA
1978, §
2.
Under current law, the statute of limitations for third-
or fourth-degree CSP is 5 years from the time the crime was committed. See §
3.
Under HB 547, the current statute of limitations
for first-degree CSP would remain unchanged; there is no provision in HB 547
for tolling this statute of limitations.
4.
Under current law, Section
5.
Section 30-1-8(G) does not expressly state what the
statute of limitations is for a first-degree nonviolent felony, nor does
Section 30-1-8(G) provide that there is no statute of limitations for
first-degree nonviolent felonies.
Under HB 547 and the current Section 30-1-8, it appears to be possible
for a suspect to argue that the offense for which he is being prosecuted is a
first-degree nonviolent felony, that Section 30-1-8(G) is therefore
inapplicable (and it is not clear under Section 30-1-8(G) what the statute of
limitations would then be), and that HB 547 is inapplicable to toll the time
for first-degree CSP.
It
may be helpful to prevent this confusion by changing HB 547 so that it would
toll the statute of limitations for first-degree CSP in the event that a
statute of limitations is set by law.
For instance, a new subsection could be added to HB 547 to provide: "When DNA evidence is available and a
suspect has not been identified, and when Section 30-1-8 NMSA 1978 sets a time
limitation for commencing prosecution for an alleged violation of Subsection C
of Section 30-9-11 NMSA 1978, the applicable time period for commencing
prosecution shall not begin to run until a DNA profile is matched with a
suspect." Section 2 of SB 470
should then also be changed to add "C" after "Subsection"
and before "D, E or F."
SJM/prr:yr