by looking to the plain meaning of the language used in the statute. State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, ¶ 9, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022. We avoid any construction that would be “absurd, unreasonable, or contrary to the spirit of the statute.” Id. ¶ 10. To search for legislative intent, we look at the overall structure and function of the statute in the comprehensive legislative scheme, we consider any particular provision in reference to the statute as a whole as well as to other statutes dealing with the same subject, and we strive to read different enactments as harmonious. Id. We are without power to revise the language used in a criminal statute. State v. Powell, 114 N.M. 395, 403, 839 P.2d 139, 147 (Ct.App.1992); see State v. Javier M., 2001-NMSC-030, ¶ 32, 131 N.M. 1, 33 P.3d 1 (<HOLDING>); Torres v. State, 119 N.M. 609, 612, 894 P.2d
holding that court must construe statute as whole giving meaning to all parts so that no part is superfluous holding with respect to a general motion for directed verdict that it raised the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence on venue an essential part of the governments case internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that a statute should not be construed so as to invalidate other parts of the same statute holding that apprendi error is harmless if the court finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the result would have been the same absent the error internal quotation marks and citation omitted holding that a statute must be construed so that no part of the statute is rendered surplusage or superfluous internal quotation marks and citation omitted