256 P.3d 982
N.M. Ct. App.2011Background
- State appeals district court’s dismissal with prejudice of one count of homicide by vehicle (66-8-101(C)) and one count of accident involving death or personal injuries (66-7-201(C)) on a theory of accomplice liability under 66-8-120; Defendant was passenger, not the driver, but charged as a party to the crime.
- Prior to this appeal, this Court issued Marquez, holding a passenger could be liable as an accomplice under 66-8-120 based on aiding and abetting, with defined mens rea and community of purpose.
- After the collision, Fierro (driver) was intoxicated; Tenorio died from injuries; the State later charged Defendant in 2009 under accomplice liability theory after Marquez issued.
- District court dismissed the charges, concluding Marquez’s standard was unforeseeable and thus not retroactively applicable, violating due process.
- We reverse the district court, holding Marquez’s interpretation was foreseeable and that due process does not bar retroactive application; charges should be reinstated on remand.
- Conclusion: remand for reinstatement of charges against Defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Marquez’s interpretation of 66-8-120 was foreseeable. | State argues Marquez did not enlarge the statute and was foreseeable. | Lovato contends the Marquez interpretation was unforeseeable and retroactive application violates due process. | Foreseeable; no due process violation; charges reinstated. |
| Whether 66-8-120 provides accomplice liability for homicide by vehicle. | State asserts aiding/abetting a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code applies to homicide by vehicle. | Lovato argues no clear liability for a passenger under 66-8-120. | Yes; 66-8-120 covers aiding/abetting in Motor Vehicle Code violations, including homicide by vehicle. |
| Whether the district court’s due process analysis was correct in applying Marquez retroactively. | State contends no retroactive due process problem since interpretation was foreseeable. | Lovato asserts retroactive application violates fair notice. | Retroactive application foreseeable; due process not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Marquez v. State, 2010-NMCA-064 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (held passenger can aid/abet homicide by vehicle under 66-8-120; defined mens rea and community of purpose)
- Myers v. State, 2010-NMCA-007 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010) (due process retroactivity—unforeseeable judicial enlargement violates due process)
- Alderette v. State, 111 N.M. 297 (N.M. 1990) (overruled prior interpretation; retroactive application questioned under due process)
- Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1964) (judicial interpretations cannot criminalize prior conduct not proscribed by statute)
- Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298 (U.S. 1994) (interpretation of statute explains law as understood before reason for decision)