Committee hears broad revisions to Victims of Crime Act; sponsors agree to work with stakeholders

A House committee heard detailed testimony on HB190, a bill that would update the New Mexico Victims of Crime Act by adding new covered offenses, clarifying victims’ participation in court proceedings and creating an enforcement mechanism for violations of victims’ rights.

Sponsor Representative Hockman Vigil and representatives from the Department of Justice said the bill modernizes the statute by including crimes added in recent legislative sessions—specifically battery upon health‑care workers and human trafficking—and by enabling victims to designate representatives (including attorneys) to assert victims’ rights in court. The bill would set a general rule that victims must receive at least seven working days’ notice of proceedings, allow an interlocutory appeal when courts find “exceptional circumstances,” and create a limited private cause of action against certain court staff and government entities when victims’ rights are violated.

Althea Allen, the Department of Justice’s solicitor general, told the committee the changes would provide stronger enforcement options for victims and bring statute language into alignment with constitutional victims’ rights. Linda Atkinson of the New Mexico Victims Rights Project said current constitutional protections are too often “words on paper” because victims lack a practical enforcement remedy.

Opponents raised procedural and constitutional concerns. The Law Offices of the Public Defender said making victims able to file court actions could convert victims into parties in a criminal prosecution and questioned separating prosecution interests from the public interest. The public defender’s office recommended working with stakeholders to craft an approach that avoids upending court‑process norms and potential separation‑of‑powers issues. The ACLU of New Mexico similarly said wholesale changes to the adjudicative process are not the right approach; the organization urged reform that would protect victims without creating unintended constitutional problems for defendants.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed practical details—who would be responsible for notice (clerks of court were singled out as the office tasked with notification), how “exceptional circumstances” would be defined, and whether the bill’s private‑action remedies would encourage interlocutory appeals that slow trial‑level proceedings. Representative Hockman Vigil signaled a willingness to work with the Administrative Office of the Courts, public defenders and other stakeholders to refine the bill and its procedural safeguards.

No final committee vote was taken; the sponsor indicated willingness to consult and return with clarifications or amendments.