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 case involves allegations of criminal sexual contact of a minor (CSCM) by the Defendant. In 1994, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) investigated concerns that the Defendant may have engaged in sexual abuse of minors, including the victim in this case. The investigation concluded with no substantiated claims. In 2005, the victim disclosed to law enforcement that the Defendant had touched her breast on one occasion, leading to charges being filed (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, (N/A): The district court dismissed one count of CSCM against the Defendant, ruling that the statute of limitations had expired (paras 1, 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (State of New Mexico): Argued that the statute of limitations was tolled under NMSA 1978, Section 30-1-9.1, as the 1994 CYFD report did not constitute a report of the specific violation charged. The State also contended that factual disputes regarding the timing of the violation and its reporting should be resolved by a jury (paras 7, 9, 17).
• Appellee (Defendant): Asserted that the statute of limitations began in 1994 when the CYFD report was made, as it satisfied the requirements of Section 30-1-9.1. The Defendant argued that the statute of limitations expired in 2000, barring prosecution (paras 6, 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the 1994 CYFD report constituted a report of "the violation" under NMSA 1978, Section 30-1-9.1, thereby triggering the statute of limitations (para 10).
• Whether factual disputes regarding the timing of the violation and its reporting should be resolved by a jury (para 17).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's dismissal of the charge and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 19).

Reasons

Per Michael E. Vigil J. (Cynthia A. Fry and Ira Robinson JJ. concurring):

• The Court interpreted Section 30-1-9.1 to mean that the statute of limitations begins only when the specific violation being prosecuted is reported to law enforcement. The 1994 CYFD report did not meet this standard, as it contained only general allegations and did not specifically report the incident charged (paras 10-14).
• The Court found support for its interpretation in a similar Oregon case, which held that the statute of limitations for each offense begins only when the specific facts of that offense are reported (paras 13, 15).
• The Court emphasized that factual disputes regarding when the violation occurred or was reported must be resolved by a jury, as these are material issues that cannot be decided by the court on a motion to dismiss (paras 17-18).