AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 installed a hidden video camera in a unisex bathroom adjacent to his office to record females using the restroom for his personal sexual gratification. The recordings included two minors, and the State charged the Defendant with manufacturing child pornography. At the time of the Defendant's conduct in 2004, voyeurism was not a criminal offense in New Mexico (paras 4-5, 20).

Procedural History

• State v. Myers, 2008-NMCA-047, 143 N.M. 710, 181 P.3d 702: The Court of Appeals reversed the Defendant's convictions, holding that the statutory elements of the offense, as established in State v. Rendleman, were not proven (para 1).
• State v. Myers, 2009-NMSC-016, 146 N.M. 128, 207 P.3d 1105: The New Mexico Supreme Court overruled and modified Rendleman, reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, and remanded the case to address remaining claims, including whether the statute was void for vagueness and whether the trial court properly stayed the Defendant's sex offender registration (paras 1-2).

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the statute under which he was convicted was unconstitutionally vague as applied to his conduct, particularly due to unforeseeable judicial reinterpretation. He also contended that the trial court properly stayed his sex offender registration pending appeal (paras 2, 12, 18, 28).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Asserted that the statute was not vague and that the trial court lacked authority to stay the Defendant's mandatory sex offender registration under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) (paras 2, 26, 29).

Legal Issues

• Was the statute criminalizing the manufacture of child pornography void for vagueness as applied to the Defendant’s conduct?
• Did the trial court have the authority to stay the Defendant’s sex offender registration pending appeal?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals held that the statute was void for vagueness as applied to the Defendant’s conduct and reversed the Defendant’s convictions (para 34).
• The Court upheld the trial court’s discretion to stay the Defendant’s sex offender registration pending appeal (para 33).

Reasons

Per Vigil J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

Void for Vagueness: The Court found that the retroactive application of the New Mexico Supreme Court’s reinterpretation of the statute in Myers II violated the Defendant’s due process rights. The reinterpretation expanded the statutory elements of the offense in unforeseeable ways, effectively criminalizing conduct that was not clearly prohibited at the time of the Defendant’s actions. This unforeseeable judicial enlargement rendered the statute unconstitutionally vague as applied to the Defendant (paras 15-24).

Stay of Sex Offender Registration: The Court determined that SORNA does not explicitly prohibit trial courts from staying registration requirements pending appeal. The trial court acted within its discretion in staying the Defendant’s registration, particularly given the diagnostic evaluation indicating a low risk of reoffending and the serious legal questions raised on appeal (paras 26-33).