§ 31-27-6 — Forfeiture proceedings; determination; substitution of

New Mexico § 31-27-6

• Jurisdiction: New Mexico
• Ch. 31: Criminal Procedure
• Art. 27: Forfeiture

Text

property; constitutionality; appeal. A. A person who claims an interest in seized property shall file a response within thirty days of the date of service of the notice of intent to forfeit. The response shall include facts to support the claimant's alleged interest in the property. B. The district courts have jurisdiction over forfeiture proceedings, and venue for a forfeiture proceeding is in the same court in which venue lies for the criminal matter related to the seized property. C. The forfeiture proceeding shall begin after the conclusion of the trial for the related criminal matter in an ancillary proceeding that relates to a defendant's property before the same judge and jury, if applicable, and the court, and the jury, if applicable, may consider the forfeiture of property seized from other persons at the same time or in a later proceeding. If the criminal defendant in the related criminal matter is represented by the public defender department, the chief public defender or the district public defender may authorize department representation of the defendant in the forfeiture proceeding. D. Discovery conducted in an ancillary forfeiture proceeding is subject to the rules of criminal procedure. E. An ancillary forfeiture proceeding that relates to the forfeiture of property valued at less than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) shall be held before a judge only. F. If the state fails to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that a person whose property is alleged to be subject to forfeiture is an owner of the property: (1) the forfeiture proceeding shall be dismissed and the property shall be delivered to the owner, unless the owner's possession of the property is illegal; and (2) the owner shall not be subject to any charges by the state for storage of the property or expenses incurred in the preservation of the property. G. The court shall enter a judgment of forfeiture and the seized property shall be forfeited to the state if the state proves by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the seized property is subject to forfeiture; (2) the criminal prosecution of the owner of the seized property resulted in a conviction; and (3) the value of the property to be forfeited does not unreasonably exceed: (a) the pecuniary gain derived or sought to be derived by the crime; (b) the pecuniary loss caused or sought to be caused by the crime; or (c) the value of the convicted owner's interest in the property. H. A court shall not accept a plea agreement or other arrangement by which a defendant contributes or donates property to a person, charity or other organization in full or partial fulfillment of responsibility established in the court's proceeding. I. Following a person's conviction, the state may make a motion for forfeiture of substitute property owned by the person that is equal to but does not exceed the value of the property that is subject to forfeiture but that the state is unable to seize. The court shall order the forfeiture of substitute property only if the state proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the person intentionally transferred, sold or deposited property with a third party to avoid the court's jurisdiction and the forfeiture of the property. J. A person is not jointly and severally liable for orders for forfeiture of another person's property. When ownership of property is unclear, a court may order each person to forfeit the person's property on a pro rata basis or by another means the court deems equitable. K. Within the time period for filing an appeal following the conclusion of a forfeiture proceeding, the person whose property was forfeited may petition the court to determine whether the forfeiture was unconstitutionally excessive pursuant to the state or federal constitution. L. At a non-jury hearing on the petition, the petitioner has the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the forfeiture was grossly disproportional to the seriousness of the criminal offense for which the person was convicted. M. In determining whether the forfeiture is unconstitutionally excessive, the court may consider all relevant factors, including: (1) the seriousness of the criminal offense and its impact on the community, the duration of the criminal activity and the harm caused by the defendant; (2) the extent to which the defendant participated in the offense; (3) the extent to which the property was used in committing the offense; (4) the sentence imposed for the commission of the crime that relates to the property that is subject to forfeiture; and (5) whether the criminal offense was completed or attempted. N. In determining the value of the property subject to forfeiture, the court may consider relevant factors, including the fair market value of the property and the hardship from the loss of a primary residence, motor vehicle or other property to the defendant's family members or others if the property is forfeited, in addition to any non- monetary intrinsic value of property that would cause the defendant to suffer if the forfeiture is realized. O. The court shall not consider the value of the property to the state when it determines whether the forfeiture of the property is constitutionally excessive. P. A party to a forfeiture proceeding may appeal a district court's decision regarding the seizure, forfeiture and distribution of property.

Legislative History

Laws 2002, ch. 4, § 6; 2015, ch. 152, § 7; 2019, ch. 133, § 6.