Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance

committees of the NM Legislature. The LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports

if they are used for other purposes.

Current FIRs (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) are a vailable on the NM Legislative Website (legis.state.nm.us).

Adobe PDF versions include all attachments, whereas HTML versions may not. Previously issued FIRs and

attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR SJC

DATE TYPED 3/17/2005 HB

SHORT TITLE Life Sentence for Deadly Child Abuse

SB

CS/166/aHJC

/aSFL#1

ANALYST Peery

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NA

NA

NA

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Response Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Public Defender Department (PDD)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SJC Amendment

The House Judiciary Committee amendment to the Senate Judiciary Committee Substitute for

Senate Bill 166 strikes the Senate Floor Amendment 1. The amendment adds language that if

abuse results in great bodily harm to a child, the person is guilty of first degree felony. The

amendment also strikes line 9 through 19 on page three and adds a new subsection. The new

subsection includes the following: whoever commits negligent abuse of a child that results in the

death or the child is guilty of a first degree felony; whoever commits intentional abuse of a child

twelve to eighteen years of age that results in the death of the child is guilty of a first degree fel-

ony; and whoever commits intentional abuse of a child less than twelve years of age that results

in the death of the child is guilty of a first degree felony resulting in the death of a child. The

amendment also removes references to the wording “human being” and replaces it with “child”.

Synopsis on SFL #1 Amendment

The first Senate Floor Amendment to Senate Bill 166 adds on page 3, between lines 8 and 9, the

following “F. Whoever, commits negligent abuse of a child that results in great bodily harm to

the child is guilty of a second degree felony.” The amendment calls for re-lettering of succeed-

Senate Bill 166/SJCS/aSFL#1 -- Page 2

ing sections. The amendment also calls for on page 3, line 9, the removing of “negligent or”.

The amendment makes the distinction that those who commit negligent abuse of a child that re-

sults in great bodily harm to the child are guilty of a second degree felony, while those who

commit intentional abuse of a child that results in great bodily harm to the child are, for a first

offense, guilty of a second degree felony and for subsequent offenses are guilty of a first degree

felony.

Synopsis of Original Bill

The Senate Judiciary Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 166 amends the Abandonment or

Abuse of a Child statute, Section 30-6-1 NMSA 1978, to state an individual who commits negli-

gent or intentional abuse of a child that results in great bodily harm to the child on the first of-

fense is guilty of second degree felony and for the subsequent offenses guilty of first degree fel-

ony. The proposed legislation states whoever commits negligent or intentional abuse of a child

that results in the child’s death is guilty of a first degree felony. The proposed legislation states

for a first degree felony resulting in the death of a human being a basic sentence of life impris-

onment. The defendant must serve 30 years before becoming eligible for parole. The proposed

legislation also states for a first degree felony resulting in the death of a human being, the courts

may impose a fine not to exceed $17,500.

PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS

AOC reports the proposed legislation may have impact on the measures of the district courts in

the following areas: cases disposed as a percent of cases filed, percent change in case filings by

case type and clearance rate.

PDD reports the intentional child abuse cases resulting in death will be more difficult to try.

PDD states they are difficult to plea bargain because of the sentences involved. PDD states for

child abuse resulting in great bodily harm, the cases may be slightly easier to resolve because of

the decrease in penalty.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

A life sentence will contribute to a larger and older prison population. Costs will incur with an

older prison population from geriatric services that include hospital care and disability accom-

modations.

AOC states there will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution and

documentation of statutory changes.

PDD states the increased sentence will increase the workload and expense of the Public Defender

Department, as it includes not only child abuse but also those crimes that are first degree felonies

that unintentionally result in death for a punishment of life in prison.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

AOC states the change to statute has the potential to increase the workload of courts, thus requir-

ing additional resources to handle the increase.

Senate Bill 166/SJCS/aSFL#1 -- Page 3

CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP OR RELATIONSHIP

Duplicates and conflicts with Senate Bill 236 which is substantially identical except for the pen-

alties.

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

AOC states the proposed legislation increases the penalty of the negligent or intentional abuse of

a child. AOC reports that as potential penalty increases, the case becomes more complex and the

defendant is more likely to contest the proceedings or request a jury trial. Time to resolution is

likely to increase.

PDD states the proposed legislation suffers from the same problem as current law in that it

makes no distinction between people who have no intent and no knowledge of the abuse, and the

abuser. PDD states it treats people who are caretakers but are not present when the abuse hap-

pens as harshly as the intentional abuser. PDD reports the proposed legislation does not distin-

guish between the person who intentionally causes great bodily harm and the person who negli-

gently permits it.

PDD states the Child Abuse statute is one of the most broadly-reaching statutes in that it covers

the person who is not present when the abuse takes place under the theory of “negligently per-

mitting” the abuse to happen. PDD states this proposed legislation would allow people con-

victed of “permitting” another to have access to a child, and that other person unintentionally

causes death, to be sentenced to 9 years in prison. PDD reports the proposed bill affects poor

working women most harshly. PDD states it is the poor working mothers who are forced to

leave their young children with their partners and extended family while they work.

PDD reports the Child Abuse statute also covers situations that are not necessarily abuse. PDD

reports the statute includes a negligence standard of knew or should have known that is close to

civil negligence. PDD states the courts have not made the distinction that seems to be in the

definition that a person must actually know of the risk before it can be disregarded.

ALTERNATIVES

PDD suggests the alternative of overhauling the Child Abuse statute to make clear penalty dis-

tinction between negligently permitting, negligence and intentional abuse.

RLP/yr:lg