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: |
House Floor |
DATE TYPED: |
|
HB |
|
||
SHORT TITLE: |
Post-Conviction DNA Evidence |
SB |
SFlS for SB 390/aHFl#1 |
||||
|
ANALYST: |
Fox-Young |
|||||
APPROPRIATION
Appropriation
Contained |
Estimated
Additional Impact |
Recurring or
Non-Rec |
Fund Affected |
||
FY03 |
FY04 |
FY03 |
FY04 |
|
|
|
|
|
$0.1 Significant |
Recurring |
General
Fund |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Parenthesis
( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Relates
to SB 157
Responses
Received From
Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC)
Corrections
Department (CD)
Attorney
General (AG)
Public
Defender Department (PDD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Floor Amendment
The
House Floor Amendment #1 to the Senate Floor Substitute for Senate Bill 390
makes the following changes:
·
Inserts
“Providing For a Delayed Repeal” in the title.
·
Strikes “The petitioner shall make a
reasonable showing” of certain conditions, inserting “the petitioner shall
show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that:” certain conditions exist.
·
Expands
the condition providing that it must be reasonably probable that DNA evidence
performed prior to conviction would have been exculpatory to include cases
in which identity was an issue.
·
Provides
that “after reviewing a petition, the district court may dismiss the
petition, order a response by the district attorney or issue an order for DNA
testing.”
·
Strikes
the provision that “the district court shall order appropriate relief for the
petitioner” if the results of the DNA testing are exculpatory.
·
Provides
that Section 1 of the Act, containing all but the repeal of Section 31-1A-1 and
the effective date of the Act, shall be repealed effective
Significant
Issues
The
amended bill provides that effective
Synopsis of Original Bill
The Senate Floor Substitute for Senate Bill 390 repeals Section 31-1A-1 NMSA and enacts a new section of the Criminal Procedure Act, establishing procedures for post-conviction consideration of DNA evidence. A person convicted of a felony, who claims that DNA evidence will establish his innocence, may petition the district court of the judicial district in which he was convicted to order the disclosure, preservation, production and testing of evidence that can be subjected to DNA testing.
The
district court shall appoint counsel for a petitioner who satisfies the
requirements contained in the Act.
The
cost of DNA testing ordered pursuant to the Act is to be borne by the state or
the petitioner, as ordered by the district court. Under the Act, a petitioner may not be denied
testing because of his inability to pay for the cost of testing.
DNA
testing performed pursuant to the Act shall be performed only by laboratories
meeting the minimum standards of the national DNA index system.
Significant
Issues
Section 31-1A-1 NMSA outlines the procedures for
consideration of DNA evidence. In repealing
this section, the bill makes significant procedural changes.
AG notes that the bill provides a duplicative
procedure for challenging a felony conviction.
This procedure is in addition to a direct appeal, state habeas corpus
petition and federal habeas corpus petition.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC) notes that relaxing the conditions and standard of
proof under which a petitioner may petition for consideration of DNA evidence
will likely lead to an increase in petitions filed in district court. Allowing the petition to proceed even if the
petitioner is unable to pay for testing may also increase the number of
petitions. The petitioner and the state
may also appeal rulings and orders of the district court to the court of
appeals. Additional petitions and
appeals will call for additional judicial resources. District attorneys, courts and the public
defender will likely see a significant increase in caseloads.
The bill provides that the district court “shall appoint counsel for the
petitioner…” when the petitioner has satisfied the requisite measures to
request the test. The Public Defender
Department (PDD) notes that a flood of petitions into district court will
increase the department’s caseload enormously.
PDD also notes that there are bound to be specious claims of innocence
and requests for DNA testing even if the petitioner knows the conviction was
just and proper.
Corrections Department
(CD) reports that this bill could result in a minimal cost savings to the
department if the bill results in the release of CD inmates from prison,
probation or parole.
Both the state crime lab
and CD currently maintain large backlogs of unprocessed DNA samples. An influx of samples would put a further
strain on existing resources.
RELATIONSHIP
Relates to SB 157 (expands the DNA Identification Act)
OTHER SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
AG indicates that, in providing an additional
procedure to challenge a felony conviction, the bill will disrupt the finality
of criminal convictions. Additionally,
AG notes that because the bill does not designate any time limitation for the
filing of a petition, felony convictions will be challenged indefinitely,
providing a lack of finality that is antithetical to criminal justice administration.
The AG notes that only a “reasonable showing” is
required to file a petition. AG suggests
that a higher standard, an actual and probable claim, should be required.
The bill states that
DNA testing may be requested if the previous DNA testing was “tested incorrectly
or interpreted incorrectly.” AG notes that this language may be inexact and
inapplicable in the context of DNA testing.
A DNA sample can only be tested if the sample is sufficient. A test result is usually negative or
positive, with the resulting probability (if the DNA shows a consistent match).
AG notes that the
provisions for administration of collected samples and evidence contained in
the bill may be contrary to or inconsistent with safekeeping procedures
currently employed by the state courts and law enforcement agencies.
JCF/yr:njw/ls