Committee tables bill that would let victims decline pretrial interviews amid constitutional debate

A House committee tabled House Bill 204 after a contentious hearing in which prosecutors, victim advocates and public defenders clashed over whether pretrial interviews (PTIs) should be curtailed to reduce retraumatization of victims.

Sponsor Representative Dixon told the committee the bill would allow child victims and witnesses to refuse pretrial interviews, give adult victims the option to decline or limit interviews and create procedural safeguards when interviews occur, such as permitting an advocate to be present and allowing a victim to terminate an interview that becomes harmful. Dixon said the change ‘‘strikes a careful balance’’ between protecting victims and preserving defendants’ constitutional rights.

Deputy District Attorney Savannah Brandenburg Koch and other prosecutors, who supervise special‑victims units, testified in support and described repeated, traumatic pretrial questioning that can occur before a child or sexual‑assault victim ever reaches a courtroom. Brandenburg Koch recounted cases in which repeated interviews led to self‑harm, attempted suicide and long‑term mental‑health impacts; she said interview practices sometimes put victims in an impossible position and that best practices favor limiting repeated interviews and using trained forensic interviewers.

Opponents included the Law Offices of the Public Defender and the ACLU of New Mexico, which argued the bill would restrict defense counsel’s ability to prepare and could raise Sixth Amendment and due‑process concerns. The public defender’s office said a handful of abusive or improper interviews should be addressed with targeted rules, training and sanctions for misconduct rather than by broadly prohibiting defense interviews. The ACLU urged reforms to minimize harm but called a sweeping prohibition “an inappropriate and unconstitutional response.”

Committee members also explored how the bill would work in practice: what counts as a pretrial interview, who would make requests, how notice and discovery would change, and whether courts would see an increase in interlocutory appeals if victims could force hearings to be restarted for insufficient notice. Lawmakers also questioned how to accommodate people with disabilities and whether requesting accommodations could be misconstrued as legal practice without a license.

After debate, a motion to table HB204 prevailed on a 4–2 roll call. Sponsors and supporters said they would continue to work with defense counsel, the Administrative Office of the Courts and advocacy groups to try to develop procedural guardrails that protect victims while preserving defendants’ rights.