A person who knowingly and willfully accesses or causes to be accessed a computer, computer system, computer network or any part thereof with the intent to obtain, by means of embezzlement or false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, money, property or anything of value, when the:
A. money, property or other thing has a value of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or less, is guilty of a petty misdemeanor;
B. money, property or other thing has a value of more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) but not more than five hundred dollars ($500), is guilty of a misdemeanor;
C. money, property or other thing has a value of more than five hundred dollars ($500) but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), is guilty of a fourth degree felony;
D. money, property or other thing has a value of more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) but not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), is guilty of a third degree felony; or
E. money, property or other thing has a value of more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), is guilty of a second degree felony.
History: Laws 1989, ch. 215, § 3; 2006, ch. 29, § 22.
ANNOTATIONSThe 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2006, increased the value in Subsection A from $100 to $250; increased the value in Subsection B from more than $100, but not more than $250, and to more than $250, but not more than $500; increased the value in Subsection C from more than $250 to more than $500; and deleted the reference to sentencing pursuant to Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 in Subsections B through E.
"Accessing" construed. — The use of a telephone network consisting in part of computerized switches to make a long-distance call does not constitute the "accessing" of a "computer" within the meaning of this article. State v. Rowell, 1995-NMSC-079, 121 N.M. 111, 908 P.2d 1379.
Using a computer as a passive conduit not covered by statute. — The Computer Crimes Act, 30-45-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., was intended by the legislature to deter and punish crimes committed through the abuse of computer sophistication and to protect against the introduction of fraudulent data into a computer system, the unauthorized use of computer facilities, the alteration or destruction of computerized information or files, and the stealing of financial information data or other assets, but was not intended to apply to the use of a computer as a passive conduit through which the defendant's criminal activity passed. State v. Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, rev'd on other grounds, 2016-NMSC-034.
Insufficient evidence of computer access with intent to defraud. — Where defendant, with the victim's permission, used a computer to access victim's bank accounts and transfer funds to defendant's own bank accounts for personal use, the evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of computer access with intent to defraud because defendant did not introduce fraudulent data into a computer system, use computer facilities without authorization, alter or destroy computerized information or files, nor did she steal financial information, data or other assets, but merely used the computer as a passive conduit to access accounts and transfer funds, just as any banking customer would. State v. Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, rev'd on other grounds, 2016-NMSC-034.
Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Law: Applying the General/Specific Statute Rule in New Mexico - State v. Santillanes," see 32 N.M. L. Rev. 313 (2002).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Computer fraud, 70 A.L.R.5th 647.