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 Ingle

DATE TYPED 2/21/05

HB

SHORT TITLE Stun Guns as Deadly Weapons

SB 818

ANALYST Medina

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained Estimated Additional Impact Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY05

FY06

FY05

FY06

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Relates to the Criminal Code

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC Files

Responses Received From

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)

Attorney General

Corrections Department

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)

SUMMARY

Synopsis of Bill

Senate Bill 818 amends the Criminal Code to define a stun gun as a type of deadly weapon. A

stun gun is defined in the bill as an electroshock device capable of projecting or administering an

electric shock that can temporarily stun or incapacitate a person. According to the AODA, stun

guns would become deadly weapons for the purposes of prosecutions and penalties under those

sections dealing with the use of deadly weapons to commit a crime(s). This would also include

Section 30-7-1 through Section 30-7-22 that deal with weapons and explosives.

Significant Issues

According to the AODA, many other crimes have higher penalties for the use of a deadly

weapon in commission of the crime. Some of the more common examples are Aggravated As-

sault, Aggravated Battery, Criminal Sexual Penetration, Robbery, etc.

Senate Bill 818 -- Page 2

The AODA suggests that it can be argued that stun guns, as opposed to other weapons, are not

capable of producing death or great bodily harm. Therefore, a weapon that that incapacitates a

person by an electric shock is different than a weapon that inflicts life-threatening injuries.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

The Attorney General recommends the following:

“Senate may want to consider amending the bill to replace “or” with “and” on page 2,

line 7, so that prods and other hand-held devices are clearly exempted. Some ambiguity is

created by the use of the word “or.”

OTHER SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES

The Attorney General states:

“Although a stun gun is not ordinarily considered a “deadly weapon” in the popular sense

and lay use of that term, recent investigative reporting indicates that as many as eleven

people have died nationwide after a shock was administered with this type of weapon.

It should also be noted that other weapons that are not necessarily lethal are included in

the current definition of “deadly weapon” such as slung shots and bludgeons.

Furthermore, these devices are increasingly being purchased for private use and as re-

cently as last week, a “taser” was allegedly used by a “bouncer” to attack some customers

at a tavern in Gallup. Source: Gallup Independent, Feb. 7, 2005.”

WHAT WILL BE THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ENACTING THIS BILL.

A stun gun would not be considered a deadly weapon under the Criminal Code definitions of

such, being Section 30-1-12 NMSA 1978.

DXM/rs