A. Failing to disclose facts or change of circumstances to obtain public assistance consists of a person knowingly failing to disclose a material fact known to be necessary to determine eligibility for public assistance or knowingly failing to disclose a change in circumstances for the purpose of obtaining or continuing to receive public assistance to which the person is not entitled or in amounts greater than that to which the person is entitled. B. Whoever commits failing to disclose facts or change of circumstances to obtain public assistance when the value of the assistance wrongfully received is two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less in any twelve consecutive months is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. C. Whoever commits failing to disclose facts or change of circumstances to obtain public assistance when the value of the assistance wrongfully received is more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than five hundred dollars ($500) in any twelve consecutive months is guilty of a misdemeanor. D. Whoever commits failing to disclose facts or change of circumstances to obtain public assistance when the value of the assistance wrongfully received is more than five hundred dollars ($500) but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) in any twelve consecutive months is guilty of a fourth degree felony. E. Whoever commits failing to disclose facts or change of circumstances to obtain public assistance when the value of the assistance wrongfully received is more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) but not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in any twelve consecutive months is guilty of a third degree felony. F. Whoever commits failing to disclose facts or change of circumstances to obtain public assistance when the value of the assistance wrongfully received exceeds twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) in any twelve consecutive months is guilty of a second degree felony. History: Laws 1979, ch. 170, § 1; 1987, ch. 121, § 12; 2006, ch. 29, § 18. The 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2006, increased the value of the assistance in Subsection B from $100 to $250; increased the value of the assistance in Subsection C from more than $100, but not more than $250, and to more than $250, but not more than $500; increased the value of the assistance in Subsection D from more than $250 to more than $500; and provided in Subsections E and F that the value of the assistance is measured in a twelve consecutive month period. ANNOTATIONS This section is not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Fleming , 2006-NMCA-149, 140 N.M. 797, 149 P.3d 113, cert. denied, 2006-NMCERT-012, 141 N.M. 104, 151 P.3d 65. The term "public assistance" includes public housing benefits. State v. Fleming , 2006-NMCA-149, 140 N.M. 797, 149 P.3d 113, cert. denied, 2006-NMCERT-012, 141 N.M. 104, 151 P.3d 65. Multiple convictions of fraud violated defendant's double jeopardy rights. — Where defendant was charged with multiple counts of fraud and failure to disclose facts to obtain public assistance, related to her application for and receipt of several forms of public assistance benefits, including supplemental security income (SSI), social security disability insurance (SSDI), medicaid, and food stamps (SNAP), and where defendant claimed on appeal that her public assistance fraud convictions should be vacated because the conduct supporting those convictions was the same conduct supporting the general fraud convictions, defendant's double jeopardy rights were violated, because defendant's conduct supporting the fraud charges and the public assistance fraud charges was unitary, the general fraud was not complete before the public assistance fraud was committed, the time and space for each overlapped, the quality and nature of the acts were the same, the object and results of the acts were the same, and the mens rea for the general fraud and the public assistance fraud were the same, and, under the state's theory of the case, the public assistance fraud convictions were subsumed within the general fraud convictions. Punishment cannot be had for both fraud and public assistance fraud in this case. State v. DeLaO , 2022-NMCA-064, cert. denied. Mistake of fact instruction not warranted. — Where defendant was charged with multiple counts of fraud and failure to disclose facts to obtain public assistance, related to her application for and receipt of several forms of public assistance benefits, including supplemental security income (SSI), social security disability insurance (SSDI), medicaid, and food stamps (SNAP), and where defendant claimed on appeal that the district court improperly refused to give a mistake of fact instruction based on defendant's theory that she mistakenly believed that by separately reporting her income to the human services department [health care authority department] to satisfy a child support obligation, she satisfied all of her reporting obligations, the district court properly denied defendant's requested instruction, because the general fraud instruction adequately apprised the jury of the intent element of the crime and allowed it to consider defendant's theory of the case. State v. DeLaO , 2022-NMCA-064, cert. denied.
‹ Prev All New Mexico sections Next ›
Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Statute text is provided for general information and may not reflect the most recent amendments; verify against the official state code.