Fiscal impact reports (FIRs) are prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee (LFC) for standing finance
committees of the L egislature. 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 Steinborn
LAST UPDATED
ORIGINAL DATE 2/22/2025
SHORT TITLE Statute of Limitations for Sex Crimes
BILL
NUMBER Senate Bill 94
ANALYST Sanchez
ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL OPERATING BUDGET IMPACT *
(dollars in thousands)
Agency/Program
FY25 FY26 FY27
3 Year
Total Cost
Recurring or
Nonrecurring
Fund
Affected
NMCD
No fiscal
impact
At least $28.2 At least $28.2 At least $58.4 Recurring General Fund
Cost to Counties
No fiscal
impact
At least $19.2 At least $19.2 At least $38.4 Recurring General Fund
Total
No fiscal
impact
At least $47.4 At least $47.4 At least $94.8 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)
Office of the Attorney General (NMAG)
Law Offices of the Public Defender (LOPD)
New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) Crime Victims Reparation Commission (CVRC)
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Senate Bill 94
Senate Bill 94 (SB94) would amend Section 30-1- 8 NMSA 1978 to extend the statute of limitations
for criminal sexual penetration offenses. Under the current law, prosecution for second- degree
felonies must commence within six years, third- and fourth-degree felonies within five years, and
misdemeanors within two years.
The bill proposes to amend this framework by allowing prosecution for crimes against minors
under Section 30-9- 11 NMSA 1978 to commence at any time until the victim reaches the age of
thirty-five. Additionally, SB 94 amends Section 30-1-9.1 NMSA 1978 to specify that for violations Senate Bill 94 – Page 2
of Sections 30- 6-1, 30-9-11, and 30- 9-13 NMSA 1978, or Paragraph (1) of Subsection G of Section
30-9-11 NMSA 1978, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the victim turns eighteen
or the offense is reported to law enforcement, whichever occurs first. The bill also ensures that
first-degree violent felonies and specific offenses under Section 30- 9-11 NMSA 1978 remain
exempt from any statute of limitations, permitting prosecution at any time.
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
SB94 extends the statute of limitations for prosecuting certain criminal sexual penetration offenses
against minors, allowing prosecutions to be initiated until the victim reaches the age of 35. This
change could result in increased prosecutions, which may have fiscal implications for the judiciary,
district attorneys, public defenders, and corrections system.
An increase in prosecutions could lead to higher caseloads for courts, requiring additional judicial
resources, courtroom availability, and jury costs. More cases proceeding to trial, particularly jury
trials, could increase the demand for judicial staff time, public defender representation, and
prosecutorial resources. The Law Offices of the Public Defender (LOPD) has indicated that
defending cases involving older allegations may require additional investigative work, forensic
analysis, and expert testimony, which could increase operational costs. The potential for more
complex trials may also result in lengthier court proceedings, requiring greater judicial and
administrative commitments.
Incarceration drives costs in the criminal justice system, so any changes in the number of
individuals in prison and jail and the length of time served in prison and jail that might result from
this bill could have significant fiscal impacts. The creation of any new crime, increase of felony
degree, or increase of sentencing penalties will likely increase the population of New Mexico’s
prisons and jails, consequently increasing long- term costs to state and county general funds. The
Corrections Department (NMCD) reports the average cost to incarcerate a single inmate in FY24
was $59.3 thousand; however, due to the high fixed costs of the state’s prison facilities and
administrative overhead, LFC estimates a marginal cost (the cost per each additional inmate) of
$28.2 thousand per year across all facilities. LFC estimates a marginal cost (the cost per additional
inmate) of $19.2 per county jail inmate per year based on incarceration costs at the Metropolitan
Detention Center. Some of SB94’s provisions are anticipated to increase the number of
incarcerated individuals and increase the time they spend incarcerated. Overall, the provisions of
SB94 are expected to result in a net increase in incarceration costs for the state’s prisons. The
extent of the fiscal impact on incarceration costs will depend on the number of additional
convictions and the sentencing outcomes associated with SB94’s provisions. This analysis
assumes the incarceration of one additional individual annually.
Additionally, records retention policies may need to be reviewed in response to the extended
timeframe for prosecutions. The Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) currently
maintains investigative records for 19 years from the date of birth of the subject child. The
extended statute of limitations under SB94 may require adjustments to record retention policies to
ensure the availability of relevant documentation for potential cases.
While the precise fiscal impact of SB94 is difficult to project, the potential for an increased volume Senate Bill 94 – Page 3
of prosecutions, trials, and incarcerations may result in additional costs across multiple state
agencies. The extent of these impacts will depend on the number of cases pursued under the
extended statute of limitations and the associated demands on judicial and correctional resources.
SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
SB94 modifies the statute of limitations for certain criminal sexual penetration offenses against
minors, extending the timeframe for prosecution until the victim reaches the age of 35. This change
aligns with research indicating that survivors of childhood sexual abuse often delay reporting due
to psychological, social, or other barriers. However, the extension of time for prosecution may also
present evidentiary challenges, particularly regarding the availability and reliability of witness
testimony, physical evidence, and investigative records. Courts may be required to assess the
admissibility of older evidence, which could impact case outcomes.
The bill’s provisions interact with existing laws governing statutes of limitations and the tolling of
time limits for certain offenses against children. Some agencies note that language in SB94 could
create ambiguity in how these provisions align, particularly regarding the relationship between
different subsections of the criminal sexual penetration statute. Additionally, the bill’s approach—
tying the statute of limitations to the victim’s age rather than a fixed number of years—differs
from standard practice in criminal law, where limitation periods are generally measured from the
date of the offense or from when the crime is reported.
SB94 does not include a requirement for prosecutorial diligence in bringing charges under the
extended timeframe. While there is no statute of limitations for certain first- degree violent felonies
in New Mexico, many other offenses remain subject to time restrictions to ensure timely
prosecution. The absence of a diligence standard could raise questions regarding the fairness and
feasibility of prosecuting offenses long after they occurred, particularly when key evidence may
no longer be available. The bill also has potential implications for legal standards related to
constitutional protections, including the right to a fair trial. Defendants may challenge prosecutions
under an extended statute of limitations on the basis that delays in bringing charges have impaired
their ability to present a defense, particularly when exculpatory evidence has been lost over time.
Courts may need to address legal arguments related to due process and the Confrontation Clause
when evaluating cases filed under the extended timeframe established by SB94.
PERFORMANCE IMPLICATIONS
SB94 may impact key performance measures for judicial and prosecutorial agencies by influencing
case volume and trial complexity. The courts track case disposition rates and backlog trends, both
of which may be affected if the bill results in an increase in long-pending prosecutions. Extended
timelines for initiating charges could lead to shifts in caseload composition, with more cases
involving historical allegations requiring extensive pretrial litigation.
The bill may require adjustments to investigative protocols for law enforcement agencies,
particularly regarding how agencies manage and reopen cases involving offenses that would have
previously fallen outside the statute of limitations. Training for officers and investigators may be
necessary to ensure compliance with procedural requirements for handling delayed reports.
Additionally, public defenders and prosecutors may see changes in workload distribution as cases
brought under the expanded statute of limitations proceed through the criminal justice system. If Senate Bill 94 – Page 4
more cases proceed to trial, measures such as time to disposition and trial preparation efficiency
may be impacted, requiring adjustments in resource allocation and case management strategies.
ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS
SB94 may require agencies involved in the criminal justice process to modify internal procedures
and case management systems to account for the extended statute of limitations. Prosecutors and
public defenders may need to implement new protocols for evaluating and preparing cases
involving older allegations, which could include enhanced training for attorneys on handling
delayed disclosures, managing cases with limited physical evidence, and addressing potential legal
challenges related to due process.
Law enforcement agencies may need to adjust investigative practices, particularly regarding
evidence retention and the reopening of cases that were previously considered beyond the statute
of limitations. Existing policies governing the storage and management of forensic evidence,
witness statements, and investigative reports may require review to ensure compliance with the
longer timeframe for potential prosecutions. The judiciary may also experience administrative
effects related to case tracking and docket management. Courts could see an increase in the number
of pretrial motions related to evidentiary issues, including motions to suppress testimony due to
memory degradation or lost documentation. Additionally, jury management processes may require
adjustments if older cases increase jury trials, requiring more frequent summonses and longer trial
schedules.
Agencies responsible for victim services, including CYFD and victim compensation programs,
may need to assess whether support services are adequately structured to assist individuals
reporting offenses that occurred many years earlier. Coordination between victim advocates, law
enforcement, and prosecutorial offices may become more complex as agencies work to provide
assistance in cases involving delayed reporting.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
The bill references "crimes against a minor" but does not align this terminology with the specific
age categories used in the existing criminal sexual penetration statute (Section 30- 9-11 NMSA
1978), which differentiates between offenses based on the victim's age. Ensuring statutory
consistency may help clarify the scope of the extended statute of limitations. Additionally, the bill
includes language stating that the extended statute of limitations does not apply to violent first-
degree felonies. Still, these offenses are already exempt from statutes of limitation under current
law. Some analyses suggested that this provision may be redundant.
The amendment to Section 30- 1-9.1 NMSA 1978, which tolls the statute of limitations for certain
offenses against children, may also be unnecessary because the section already applies to the entire
criminal sexual penetration statute. Some legal analysts indicated that the additional reference to
specific subsections of the law might not substantively change the existing tolling provisions.
SS/SL2