Lawyers in the criminal case against state Public Regulation Commission member Jerome Block Jr. argued the finer points of an unusual state law during a hearing Monday, including the meanings of "shall" and "or."

However, state District Judge Michael Vigil — who at one point told a prosecutor with the state Attorney General's Office he wasn't convinced of his argument and that he'd "better try harder" — said he needed another week to deliberate and held off making a ruling Monday.

"I'm still troubled by this statute and I need to think about it more," the judge said.

A grand jury last April indicted Block Jr. and his father, former PRC Commission member Jerome Block Sr., on election-related charges. The younger Block admitted to lying about a $2,500 expenditure of public campaign funds that he at first said he gave to San Miguel County Clerk Paul Maez's band to perform at a May 2008 rally. Block later admitted he lied when two band members said the performance never occurred.

The elder Block, who prepared his son's campaign finance reports, was charged with helping his son commit the violations.

At issue Monday was the Voter Action Act, which charges New Mexico's secretary of state with deciding if a candidate for public office violated campaign finance reporting rules. If the secretary of state decides there is a violation — as Secretary of State Mary Herrera did in the case of Block Jr. — then the secretary "shall" impose a fine "or" refer the case to the Attorney General's Office for criminal prosecution, lawyers for both sides said.

But Block's lawyer, Cammie Nichols, said the law — which is written differently than any other law on New Mexico's books — essentially limits the attorney general's authority to prosecute. If the secretary of state fines a person, then the attorney general cannot step in and criminally prosecute under the same statute, Nichols said.

In a separate motion, Nichols also says it's double jeopardy for the state to both fine Block and criminally prosecute him under the statute.

Assistant Attorney General Andrew Montgomery said his office interprets the statute differently. The law doesn't give the secretary of state the authority to decide if the attorney general can prosecute or not, he said.

Vigil, though, pointed out that because the statute is written differently from other laws that say a person "may" act one way "or" the other, the Legislature "clearly" was thinking of something different.

"Why would the Legislature give the secretary of state the option?" the judge asked. "Maybe (the statute is) poorly written, but we have to interpret it. I'm troubled by the 'or.' Your argument on 'or' hasn't convinced me. Maybe you should try harder."

Herrera — who fined Block $21,700 — testified earlier in Monday's hearing that she meant the fine to be moderate.

"I didn't want to go too weak and I didn't want to go too strong," she said. "I wanted it to be fair to the taxpayers and fair to (Block Jr.)."

Herrera said when she heard about the attorney general's plans to charge Block criminally, she didn't like it, though her feelings didn't have to do with whether she thought Block Jr. was criminally negligent.

"He's a very likable young man," Herrera said. "I didn't like it. It didn't feel good."

She said she felt the fine was fair punishment. She said the Attorney General's Office never consulted her office in pursuing criminal charges against Block. However, she also said that her office "wasn't looking for anything criminal," which was out of her purview.

The younger Block — elected to his first PRC term in November 2008 — is charged with two counts of embezzlement. The money in question was public campaign funds.

Both Blocks are charged with election-code violations, conspiracy and tampering with evidence. Their trial is scheduled to begin March 22.

Contact Jason Auslander at 986-3076 or :jauslander@sfnewmexican.com.