State v. Hall
2013 NMSC 001
N.M.2012Background
- Hall moved to New Mexico in 2006 from California, where he had been convicted of a misdemeanor for annoying or molesting a child under Cal. Penal Code § 647.6(a)(1).
- Because of the California conviction, Hall was required to register as a sex offender in California.
- In 2008 Hall informed Las Cruces police that he was harassed due to being a convicted sex offender in California and that he was not registered in New Mexico, and he was charged with failing to register under § 29-11A-4(N).
- Hall argued there was no New Mexico statute equivalent to California’s offense, while the State maintained the conduct was equivalent to a New Mexico registrable offense (criminal sexual contact of a minor) based on accompanying conduct.
- The Court of Appeals held the California offense was not equivalent to any registrable New Mexico offense; this Court reversed, holding that equivalence can be based on actual conduct, not solely on elements, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| How to determine equivalence for SORNA offenses | Hall: elements-only approach; must be identical to NM enumerated offenses. | State: consider actual conduct underlying the out-of-state conviction. | Equivalence may depend on actual conduct, not just elements. |
| What evidence suffices to determine conduct in plea cases | Hall’s conduct should be measured by inflowing pleadings; insufficient record forecloses equivalence. | Court may use charging documents, plea agreement, and plea transcript to determine conduct. | Actual conduct may be established from plea documents; if inadequate record, remand. |
| Record sufficiency to compare to NM offenses | California conduct could constitute NM criminal sexual contact of a minor. | State must prove the conduct would have violated an enumerated NM offense. | Record was insufficient to determine conduct and thus equivalence in this case. |
| Role of comity and full faith and credit | Comity/credit requires treating California conviction as registrable. | Registration is New Mexico law-specific; comity not controlling. | Registration in NM not compelled by comity; NM law governs and was interpreted broadly. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Rowell, 121 N.M. 111 (1995) (statutory interpretation; broad remedial approach)
- In re Esther V., 149 N.M. 315 (2011) (remedial statutes interpreted liberally)
- Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13 (1995) (fact-based inquiry for prior convictions with plea evidence)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (courts may consider underlying facts for ACCA-like determinations)
- In re North v. Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders of State of New York, 871 N.E.2d 1133 (2007) (foreign offense overlap analysis; elements vs conduct)
- State v. Mueller, 53 So.3d 677 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2010) (publication of equivalent conduct analysis across jurisdictions)
- Muse v. Muse, 200 P.3d 104 (2009) (NM appellate approach to evidentiary sufficiency in registrability)