“statue that did not exist at the time of the alleged crime.”
A version of it did exist but with a 3-year penalty.
“At the time of the incident, New Mexico’s firearm-enhancement statute was applied to cases where a gun was “brandished” in the commission of a non-capital felony, defining brandished as displaying a firearm “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.”
The statute was later amended by the New Mexico legislature to remove any mention that a gun must be brandished, the court filing states.” -—CNBC report
_______________________________________________________________
This idiot prosecutor charged Baldwin under a statute that was signficantly changed. Under the prior law, the prosecution had to prove that Baldwin “brandished” the firearm, which he did not do. The post-shooting statute removed the requirement that the defendant “brandished” the gun. This was obviously an ex post facto violation.
Perhaps the prosecutors fear jurors might view a 3 year mandatory sentence enhancement as excessive, and therefore acquit Baldwin, whereas if they do not feel responsible for imposing “harsh” punishment, they are more likely to convict.
“A version of it did exist but with a 3-year penalty.”
__________________________________________________
The old statute required that the prosecution prove that Baldwin “brandished” the firearm, which he obviously did not do. So this idiot prosecutor charged him under a law that was passed AFTER the shooting, which eliminated the element of proof of brandishing. If the only thing that had changed was the penalty, that would not be an ex post facto violation (the prosecutor would be limited, however, to seeking 3 years’ incarceration). Taking out an element of proof from a statute makes it a different crime and an ex post facto violation.