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 Pettigrew/Zamora
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 3/7/25
SHORT TITLE Perjury For False Legislative Testimony
BILL
NUMBER House Bill 359
ANALYST Chavez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT*
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
AOC
No fiscal
impact
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
Indeterminate
but minimal
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) New Mexico Attorney General (NMAG) State Ethics Commission (SEC) Health Care Authority Department (HCAD)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of House Bill 359
House Bill 359 (HB359) would amend Section 30-25-1 NMSA 1978, the statute governing
perjury to add that perjury includes knowingly untrue statements made in legislative
proceedings, including hearings of standing or interim committees, even if the statement is not
given under oath. However, an exception is made for statements given by members of the public
during designated public comment periods at legislative hearings. The amendments narrow
application to cover legislative perjury separately.
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 Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) provides the following:
There will be a minimal administrative cost for statewide update, distribution and
documentation of statutory changes. Any additional fiscal impact on the judiciary would
be proportional to the enforcement of this law and commenced prosecutions, and appeals
from convictions, as well as challenges to the law. New laws, amendments to existing House Bill 359 – Page 2
laws and new hearings have the potential to increase caseloads in the courts, thus
requiring additional resources to handle the increase.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
The New Mexico Attorney General provides the following:
Under the bill, it is only criminal to make a false statement to the Legislature if the person
who makes the statement knows it is false, specifying the necessary criminal intent
involved. Punishing only those false statements made knowingly is important to avoid
chilling constitutionally protected speech. See Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323,
340 (1974) (“[P]unishment of error runs the risk of inducing a cautious and restrictive
exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and press.”).
To subject an individual to criminal liability, HB359 requires that the individual be
“requested to testify.” However, the bill does not provide any guidance concerning what
this means, including who may make such a request or what conduct constitutes
testifying. This could subject the law to vagueness or due process challenges. See, e.g.,
State v. Marchiondo, 1973-NMCA-137, ¶ 4, 85 N.M. 627 (“A statute violates due
process if it is so vague that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning. The vagueness doctrine is based on notice and applies when a potential actor is
exposed to criminal sanctions without a fair warning as to the nature of the proscribed
activity.” (text only)); United States v. Lesh, 107 F.4th 1239, 1247 (10th Cir. 2024) (“The
void for vagueness doctrine addresses two concerns: first, that regulated parties should
know what is required of them so they may act accordingly; second, precision and
guidance are necessary so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or
discriminatory way.” (text only)).
The State Ethics Commission provides the following:
The new provisions of the perjury statute raise a question of enforceability to the extent
that it would hold criminally liable someone who did not commit or swear under oath to
tell the truth. See Rule 11-603 NMRA. In general, the mens rea requirements in criminal
law would likely require that a person at the very least commit to giving truthful
statements to the Legislature before being held criminally liable for knowingly failing to
do so. See also State v. Campos, 1996-NMSC043 ¶ 38, 122 N.M. 148 abrogated on other
grounds by State v. Groves, 2021-NMSC-003, 478 P.3d 915 (knowledge crimes require
either conscious wrongdoing or the purposeful doing of an act that the law declares to be
a crime). While the proposed amendment includes “knowing that statement to be untrue”
it does not require the statement to be under oath, affirmation, or penalty of perjury.
Including “oath, affirmation or penalty of perjury” provides an individual providing
testimony that their statements are subject to prosecution, a requirement HB359 would
remove.
This poses a second question related to the constitutionality of the proposed changes. An
individual has a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination which includes the fear
of perjury. If someone is not properly informed of their rights to avoid self-incrimination,
then their rights under the Fifth Amendment will form the basis of a defense against such
claims against them. Section 30-25-2 of the perjury statute supports this premise, which
provides: “refusal to take oath or affirmation consists of the refusal of any person, when
legally called upon to give testimony before any court, administrative proceeding, House Bill 359 – Page 3
legislative proceeding or other authority in this state, authorized to administer oaths or
affirmations, to take such oath or affirmation. Whoever commits refusal to take oath or
affirmation is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.” § 30-25-2 (1963).
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The Health Care Authority Department (HCA) provides the following:
The exclusion of public testimony is not clearly defined. The bill could benefit from
clarifying whether the term "public" includes registered lobbyists, subject-matter experts,
or contracted advisors who are not state employees.
OTHER SUBSTANT IVE ISSUES
HCA provides the following:
The lack of a clear mechanism for determining intentionality—such as whether an
individual knowingly made a false statement versus providing incorrect information
based on misunderstanding or error—could lead to enforcement challenges and potential
legal disputes over how the law is applied.
The bill’s provisions could result in inconsistent application across different legislative
settings, particularly if there are discrepancies in how committees document and handle
testimony.
FC/hj/SL2