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 in 2005 with five counts of first-degree criminal sexual penetration of a minor, alleged to have occurred between 1978 and 1985. The Defendant argued that the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the alleged offenses had expired, barring prosecution (paras 1, 3).
Procedural History
- District Court, Sierra County: Denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations and certified the issue for interlocutory appeal (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the statute of limitations in effect at the time of the alleged offenses had expired, and the retroactive application of the 1997 amendment eliminating the statute of limitations violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution (paras 1, 4).
- State-Appellee: Contended that the 1997 amendment could be applied retroactively to offenses committed after July 1, 1982, as the statute of limitations for those offenses had not yet expired when the amendment took effect. The State also argued that the Legislature intended the amendment to apply retroactively (paras 2, 7, 12).
Legal Issues
- Does the retroactive application of the 1997 amendment eliminating the statute of limitations for first-degree felonies violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
- Did the Legislature intend for the 1997 amendment to apply retroactively?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and barred the prosecution of all charges against the Defendant (para 14).
Reasons
Per Castillo J. (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
Ex Post Facto Analysis: The Court held that retroactive application of the 1997 amendment to offenses committed before July 1, 1982, violated the Ex Post Facto Clause because the statute of limitations for those offenses had already expired before the amendment took effect. However, for offenses committed after July 1, 1982, the amendment did not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause, as the statute of limitations had not yet expired when the amendment became effective (paras 5-8).
Legislative Intent: The Court concluded that the Legislature did not clearly intend for the 1997 amendment to apply retroactively. New Mexico law presumes statutes operate prospectively unless explicitly stated otherwise. The Court found no clear legislative intent to apply the amendment retroactively, and criminal statutes of limitations are to be liberally construed in favor of the Defendant (paras 9-12).
Conclusion: The Court determined that the 1997 amendment applied prospectively and barred the prosecution of all charges against the Defendant (para 14).