AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted under the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act for covertly videotaping two female minors in a government office bathroom in 2004. The camera was hidden beneath a radiator, positioned to capture the victims' pubic areas. The Defendant appealed the convictions, arguing the images did not depict a "prohibited sexual act" and were not "obscene" (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• State v. Myers (Myers I), 2008-NMCA-047: The Court of Appeals reversed Defendant's convictions, concluding the images did not depict a "prohibited sexual act" as defined by the Act (para 4).
• State v. Myers (Myers II), 2009-NMSC-016: The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the images did depict a "prohibited sexual act" and were obscene under the Act (para 5).
• State v. Myers (Myers III), 2010-NMCA-007: On remand, the Court of Appeals held that retroactively applying the Supreme Court's opinion violated due process, constituting an unforeseeable judicial enlargement of the Act (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Petitioner (State of New Mexico): Argued that the images constituted a "prohibited sexual act" under the Sexual Exploitation of Children Act and were obscene. Contended that the trial judges do not have the discretion to stay the application of SORNA pending appeal (paras 3, 8).
• Defendant-Respondent (Ronald Myers): Claimed the images did not depict a "prohibited sexual act" and were not "obscene." Argued that the retroactive application of the Supreme Court's opinion violated due process. Supported the district court's decision to stay his required registration under SORNA pending the outcome of his appeal (paras 3, 7).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that retroactively applying the Supreme Court's opinion to Defendant's conduct violates due process (para 1).
• Whether trial judges have the power or discretion to stay the application of SORNA pending the outcome of an appeal (para 1).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision that retroactively applying its opinion violated due process and remanded to the district court for further proceedings enforcing Defendant's convictions (para 1).
• Held that trial judges do not have the power or discretion to stay the application of SORNA pending the outcome of an appeal (para 8).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals misapprehended both its opinion and the law relative to retroactive application of judicial decisions. It concluded that the principle of fairness does not apply to the Defendant's case as the Act's language and the Court's interpretation did not constitute an unforeseeable judicial enlargement. The Court also clarified that SORNA's registration requirements are immediate, automatic, and not subject to judicial discretion, emphasizing that they are remedial and not punitive measures. The Court addressed and dismissed Defendant's due process arguments regarding the Act's vagueness as applied, arbitrary enforcement, and the district court's alleged expansion of the Act's language (paras 9-45).