Abstract
The government cannot punish someone twice for the same offense. But determining whether two crimes are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes can be difficult. New Mexico courts approach this problem in a unique way. In 1991, the New Mexico Supreme Court created a multi-step test for double description cases that largely reflected federal law under Blockburger v. United States. Over time, the supreme court modified and expanded the inquiry. These departures have produced an overly complex analysis that has lost sight of the sole limitation on imposing multiple punishments: legislative intent. This Article proposes three changes that would return New Mexico’s test to its original focus. First, courts should only apply the modified Blockburger test when interpreting a handful of inherently ambiguous statutes. Second, courts should allow the presumption generated by the Blockburger test to be rebutted by contrary indicia of legislative intent. Third, courts should not consider whether convictions were based on the same conduct when determining whether the legislature authorized multiple punishments. Although these changes would improve today’s cumbersome test, it may be time to fundamentally rethink New Mexico double description jurisprudence.
Recommended Citation
Van E. Snow,
“A Profusion of Terms and Tests”: Clarifying New Mexico’s Double Description Analysis,
55
N.M. L. Rev.
1
(2025).
Available at:
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol55/iss1/2
