State v. Block
150 N.M. 598
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- The Voter Action Act provides public financing for campaigns and includes civil penalties up to $10,000 per violation and criminal penalties for willful violations.
- Block Jr. ran as a certified candidate in 2008, receiving about $101,508 from the public election fund; three fines were levied totaling $11,000 and funds must be returned.
- The Secretary of State issued a final action in 2008, but did not expressly refer the matter to the Attorney General for criminal prosecution.
- In 2009, a grand jury indicted Block Jr. and Block Sr. on multiple counts including violations of the Act, conspiracy, tampering, and embezzlement; counts were joined.
- The district court dismissed all Act-related charges, ruling the AG lacked authority without a referral and that double jeopardy barred prosecution.
- The NM Court of Appeals reversed, holding: (a) the AG has authority to prosecute under the Act without a Secretary referral; (b) civil penalties under the Act are not punishment for double jeopardy purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AG authority to prosecute without referral | Block Jr. contends AG lacks authority absent referral. | Block Jr. argues the Act constrains AG without referral. | AG authority exists without a prior referral from the Secretary. |
| Civil penalty vs. punishment for double jeopardy | Civil penalties may be punishment and preclude further criminal action. | Civil penalties are remedial and do not constitute punishment. | Civil penalties are not punishment for double jeopardy purposes and do not bar later criminal prosecution. |
| Unitary conduct and double jeopardy (Counts 3-4 vs. prior penalties) | Some counts share conduct with prior penalties and may implicate jeopardy concerns. | Counts 3-4 involve separate conduct from penalties. | Counts 3-4 involve separate conduct; not barred by double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kirby v. State, 133 N.M. 782 (2003-NMCA-074) (Mendoza-Martinez seven-factor framework for civil vs. criminal penalties)
- White Chevy, 132 N.M. 187 (2002-NMSC-014) (civil penalties may have punitive effects but remedial purpose prevails)
- Swink v. Fingado, 850 P.2d 978 (1993) (interpretation of 'or' in statutes and legislative intent considerations)
- Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997) (punishment vs. civil penalties: legislative intent and labeling relevance)
- Nunez, 2 P.3d 264 (2000-NMSC-013) (statutory penalties and remedial purposes within election/regulatory context)