A. An amendment or repeal of a civil statute or rule does not affect a pending action or proceeding or a right accrued before the amendment or repeal takes effect.

B. A pending civil action or proceeding may be completed and a right accrued may be enforced as if the statute or rule had not been amended or repealed.

C. If a criminal penalty for a violation of a statute or rule is reduced by an amendment, the penalty, if not already imposed, must be imposed under the statute or rule as amended.

History: Laws 1997, ch. 173, § 16.

Effective dates. — Laws 1997, ch. 173 § 22 made the Uniform Statute and Rule Construction Act effective July 1, 1997.

Adoption of amendment evidences intent to change original law. — It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that the adoption of an amendment is evidence of an intention by the legislature to change the provision of the original law. Cancienne, Inc. v. Southwest Cmty. Inns, Inc., 1969-NMSC-110, 80 N.M. 512, 458 P.2d 587; Martinez v. Research Park, Inc., 1965-NMSC-146, 75 N.M. 672, 410 P.2d 200, overruled on other grounds by Sundance Mech. & Util. Corp. v. Atlas, 1990-NMSC-031, 109 N.M. 683, 789 P.2d 1250.

Amended act must be accepted as law upon subject embraced therein; the repealed act can be looked to only to interpret anything in which there is substantial doubt as to meaning of the language used. Cortesy v. Territory, 1893-NMSC-008, 7 N.M. 89, 32 P. 504.

Portion of amended section not reenacted, repealed. — A statute amending a section "so as to read as follows," repeals all that is not reenacted. Sandoval v. Board of County Comm'rs, 1906-NMSC-028, 13 N.M. 537, 86 P. 427.

Saving clause used to retain old statute for specific purposes. — In repealing or amending a statute the legislature may save the old statute for specified purposes by an appropriate saving clause in the repealing or amending act. Board of Educ. v. Citizens' Nat'l Bank, 1917-NMSC-059, 23 N.M. 205, 167 P. 715.

Legislative intent embodied in this section indicates a policy decision to apply a reduced sentence if the penalty has not been imposed. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Section conflict with Section 30-1-2 NMSA 1978. — To the extent that this section, enacted in 1997, and Section 30-1-2 NMSA 1978, enacted in 1963, conflict, the latter enactment supercedes the prior. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Habitual Offender Act. — Article IV, Section 33, N.M. Const., does not apply to the 2002 amendment to Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978 or to the interpretation of the amendment through this section. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Applying Subsection C of this section to the 2002 amendment to Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978, the 2002 amendment effectively reduces the potential enhanced penalties for violating felony statutes by narrowing the definition of "prior felony conviction." State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. granted, 2004-NMCERT-006, 135 N.M. 788, 93 P.3d 1293, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.