This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Defendant was charged with five counts of aggravated criminal sexual penetration of a child under thirteen years of age, alleged to have occurred between January 1, 1978, and December 30, 1985. The charges were based on conduct classified as first-degree felonies under New Mexico law (para 2).
Procedural History
- Trial Court: Denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss, holding that legislative amendments extending the statute of limitations applied to the Defendant’s alleged conduct and did not constitute an ex post facto law (para 3).
- State v. Morales, 2008-NMCA-155: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the 1997 amendment abolishing the statute of limitations could not be applied retroactively to crimes committed before its effective date, as it violated the ex post facto clause (para 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff (State): Argued that the 1997 amendment abolishing the statute of limitations for capital felonies and first-degree violent felonies applied to crimes committed before its effective date, provided the original statute of limitations had not yet expired (paras 5-6).
- Defendant: Contended that the charges should be dismissed because the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the alleged crimes had expired, and retroactive application of the 1997 amendment violated the ex post facto clauses of the United States and New Mexico Constitutions (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Whether the 1997 amendment abolishing the statute of limitations for capital felonies and first-degree violent felonies applies to crimes committed before its effective date, provided the original statute of limitations had not yet expired (para 6).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and held that the 1997 amendment applies to unexpired criminal conduct committed before its effective date (para 20).
Reasons
Per Maes J. (Daniels C.J., Serna, Bosson, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
The Court concluded that the 1997 amendment abolishing the statute of limitations for capital felonies and first-degree violent felonies applies to crimes committed before its effective date, provided the original statute of limitations had not yet expired. The reasoning included the following points:
Legislative Intent: The Court determined that the Legislature intended the 1997 amendment to apply to unexpired crimes, as the amendment’s purpose was to ensure that serious crimes do not escape prosecution due to the passage of time (paras 6, 14).
Retroactivity: The Court held that the amendment was not retroactive because it did not impair vested rights, impose new obligations, or affix new disabilities to past transactions. The Defendant had no vested right in the original statute of limitations, as it had not yet expired for crimes committed after July 1, 1982 (paras 11, 17).
Consistency with Precedent: The Court distinguished this case from prior decisions, such as State v. Kerby, where the statute of limitations had already expired, creating a vested right. Here, the Defendant’s right to be free from prosecution had not vested because the original limitations period had not expired (para 17).
Overwhelming Jurisdictional Support: The Court noted that the majority of jurisdictions have held that statutory amendments extending or abolishing unexpired statutes of limitations apply to crimes committed before the amendment’s effective date (para 15).
Ex Post Facto Argument: The Court declined to address the Defendant’s ex post facto argument, as it was outside the scope of the certiorari grant (para 19).
The Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 20).