Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the Legislature. LFC does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of these reports if they
are used for other purposes.
F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T
SPONSOR Reeb
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/6/2025
SHORT TITLE
Traffic Offense Video Testimon
y
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 105
ANALYST Dinces
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
DOH
No fiscal
impact
($112.0) ($112.0) ($224) Recurring General Fund
Parentheses ( ) indicate expenditure decreases.
*Amounts reflect most recent analysis of this legislation.
Sources of Information
LFC Files
Agency Analysis Received From Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)
Law Offices of the Public Defender (LOPD)
New Mexico Office of the Attorney General (NMAG)
Taxation and Revenue Department (TRD)
Department of Health (DOH)
Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 105
House Bill 105 (HB105) adds a new section to the Implied Consent Act to allow that, if a party
subpoenas an analyst or toxicologist to testify at a court proceeding for any purpose, the analyst
or toxicologist may appear by interactive video. The bill also amends Section 66-8-107 NMSA
1978 to add that the defendant shall be deemed to have given consent to the analyst's or
toxicologist's appearance by means of interactive video if a laboratory analyst who performed a
chemical test or a toxicologist testifies as an expert on the results of the chemical testing
This bill does not contain an effective date and, as a result, would go into effect 90 days after the
Legislature adjourns if enacted, or June 20, 2025.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The Department of Health states this bill would be a cost savings to the agency:
HB105 seeks to significantly reduce the costs incurred by the scientific laboratory staff House Bill 105 – Page 2
when traveling to provide testimony in criminal cases across New Mexico. As the state’s
sole public health laboratory, the Scientific Laboratory supports court systems in all 33
counties. However, travel to and from these courts imposes a substantial burden in terms
of both time and expenses.
Currently, staff time spent on travel, case preparation, testimony, and waiting in court is
equivalent to one full-time forensic scientist. The estimated cost in staff time alone is:
• Base salary: $79,990 per year
• Benefits (1.40 multiplier): $31,996
• Total personnel cost: $111,986 per year
In addition to personnel costs, travel-related expenses further strain state resources. Each
overnight trip incurs a per diem expense of $166, adding to the overall financial burden.
In addition to these costs, time spent away from conducting analysis in the lab results in
slower results and backlogs of specimens.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
DOH explains how New Mexico operates differently than other states in regard to in person
testimony from toxicology analysts:
The US Supreme Court Decision in Smith vs. Arizona is being interpreted differently by
some attorneys in New Mexico compared to other states. As a result, New Mexico courts
may subpoena several toxicology analysts for in-person testimony for each case, resulting
in 2-4 analysts having to travel for the same case. If this trend continues State Laboratory
Division (SLD) anticipates an increase in both total time spent traveling to/from court
and time waiting to testify. In some circumstances multiple subpoenas are received at
once, implicating the same analysts for in-person testimony in different parts of the state.
This circumstance can lead to more serious issues like the necessity to prioritize one case
over another, disrupting scheduling coordination for the courts, parties, and SLD
analysts, and ultimately the individual’s right to due process and the prosecution’s ability
to present expert testimony, which can lead to unwarranted dismissals.
While allowing for remote video testimony may increase efficiency and reduce burden for expert
witnesses, there are questions about constitutionality. Both of these issues are discussed by
agencies below.
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) highlights:
This bill is identical to 2023 House Bill 159. The published FIR for that bill had some
important constitutionality issues raised by both the New Mexico Attorney General and
the Law Office of the Public Defender due to the elimination of testimony at criminal
trials where testifying witnesses are subject to the kind of face-to-face, in-court
confrontation guaranteed by the constitutions of both the United States and the State of
New Mexico. These are constitutional rights of defendants that cannot be modified by
statute. Convenience does not constitute a valid exception to the confrontation
requirement under State v. Chung, 2012-NMCA-049, 290 P.3d 269.
NMAG also brings up the constitutionality question:
This bill raises concerns under the Confrontation Clause of the United States Constitution
when applied to criminal trials. See U.S. Const. Amend. 6; N.M. Const. Art. II, Sec. 14.
In State v. Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 29, the New Mexico Supreme Court “adopted” House Bill 105 – Page 3
the rule generally requiring face-to-face confrontation from the United States Supreme
Court in Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990) in a case that reversed a conviction
where a forensic analyst testified via video. Under Craig, “[a] criminal defendant may
not be denied a physical face-to-face confrontation with a witness who testifies at trial
unless the court has made a factual finding of necessity to further an important public
policy and has ensured the presence of other confrontation elements concerning the
witness testimony including administration of the oath, the opportunity for cross-
examination, and the allowance for observation of witness demeanor by the trier of fact.”
The Court in Thomas recognized that our Court of Appeals has consistently applied
Craig when analyzing the admissibility of live two-way video testimony under the
Confrontation Clause and that the “vast majority of courts from other jurisdictions, both
state and federal, are in accord
Although the bill would only apply to traffic offenses such as DUI prosecutions, its
categorical requirement of video testimony while obviating the need for individualized
findings does not satisfy Craig, 497 U.S. 836 (1990), even if it generally furthers an
important policy. Craig requires case-by-case, particularized findings of both necessity
and furtherance of an important public policy before face-to-face confrontation can be
denied. See State v. Smith, 2013-NMCA-081, ¶ 5; Thomas, 2016-NMSC-024, ¶ 30.
The Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC) states that they would anticipate greater
availability of experts as well as improve efficiency in case processing which would likely
positively impact crime victims.
DPS states:
DPS firmly believes the ability of laboratory analysts or toxicologists to appear in court
via video will not only allow for streamlined court processes but will permit critical
laboratory analysts and toxicologists to perform their important primary functions with
less burden, reduce delays associated with scheduling in-person testimony, and increase
the availability of expert testimony in DUI cases. All these things will potentially
strengthen the enforcement of traffic safety laws.
Section 1 of HB105, which proposes to create a new section of the Implied Consent Act, refers
to “analyst,” which is a broadly descriptive term. Conversely, Section 2 of HB105, which
proposes to amend Section 66-8-107, NMSA 1978 refers more specifically to “laboratory analyst
who performed a chemical test.”
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
NMAG states that the enactment of this proposed legislation could increase the caseloads of the
district and appellate courts due to a potential increase in appeals.
CONFLICT, DUPLICATION, COMPANIONSHIP, RELATIONSHIP
This bill is identical to House Bill 159 from 2023 and House Bill 62 from 2024
SD/hj/SL2