plain language rule in New Mexico

2021“We begin by examining the plain language of the rule as well as the context in which it was promulgated, including the history of the rule and the object and purpose.” State v. Aslin, 2020-NMSC-004, ¶ 9 , 457 P.3d 249 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021“We begin by examining the plain language of the rule as well as the context in which it was promulgated, including the history of the rule and the object and purpose.” State v. Aslin, 2020-NMSC-004, ¶ 9 , 457 P.3d 249 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2012According to those rules of construction, our overarching goal is to determine the underlying intent of the drafters, Roark v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2007-NMCA-074, ¶ 50 , 142 N.M. 59 , 162 P.3d 896 , and we begin that task by parsing the plain language of the rule.

2012According to those rules of construction, our overarching goal is to determine the underlying intent of the drafters, Roark v. Farmers Group, Inc., 2007-NMCA-074, ¶ 50 , 142 N.M. 59 , 162 P.3d 896 , and we begin that task by parsing the plain language of the rule.

2019Sch., 2016-NMCA-009, ¶ 6 , 365 P.3d 1 . 7 {9} While the simplicity of the plain language rule is attractive, we must 8 examine Appellants’ interpretation of Section 17-2-43.1(B) in relation to the entire 9 statute, so that we can ensure “words are not interpreted outside of any relevant 10 legislative context.” See State v. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 39 , 11 966 P.2d 747 .

2019Sch., 2016-NMCA-009, ¶ 6 , 365 P.3d 1 . 7 {9} While the simplicity of the plain language rule is attractive, we must 8 examine Appellants’ interpretation of Section 17-2-43.1(B) in relation to the entire 9 statute, so that we can ensure “words are not interpreted outside of any relevant 10 legislative context.” See State v. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 39 , 11 966 P.2d 747 .

2010This approach "has the greatest probative force in the case of statutes relating to the same subject matter passed at the same session of the Legislature." State v. Davis, 2003-NMSC-022, ¶ 12 , 134 N.M. 172 , 74 P.3d 1064 . {¶ 17} Our reading of Section 22-11-29(E) leads to the inexorable conclusion that although the statute does not expressly prohibit the payment of interest, the plain language is clear and unambiguous about whether the balance of accumulated contributions includes the payment of interest.

2010This approach "has the greatest probative force in the case of statutes relating to the same subject matter passed at the same session of the Legislature." State v. Davis, 2003-NMSC-022, ¶ 12 , 134 N.M. 172 , 74 P.3d 1064 . {¶ 17} Our reading of Section 22-11-29(E) leads to the inexorable conclusion that although the statute does not expressly prohibit the payment of interest, the plain language is clear and unambiguous about whether the balance of accumulated contributions includes the payment of interest.

2025“We begin by examining the plain language of the rule as 10 1 well as the context in which it was promulgated, including the history of the rule and 2 the object and purpose.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022“We begin by examining the plain language of the rule as well as the context in which it was promulgated, including the history of the rule [or order] and the object and purpose.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2023“When the language in a statute is 10 clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and refrain from further 11 statutory interpretation.” State v. Duhon, 2005-NMCA-120, ¶ 10 , 138 N.M. 466 , 122 12 P.3d 50 . 13 {14} Rule 16-802(A) provides, “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the 14 lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity 15 concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public 16 legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.” 17 The plain language of the rule is s

2023“When the language in a statute is 10 clear and unambiguous, we give effect to that language and refrain from further 11 statutory interpretation.” State v. Duhon, 2005-NMCA-120, ¶ 10 , 138 N.M. 466 , 122 12 P.3d 50 . 13 {14} Rule 16-802(A) provides, “A lawyer shall not make a statement that the 14 lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity 15 concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public 16 legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.” 17 The plain language of the rule is s

2023As Taxpayer points out, a proposition is “substantiated” if it “establish[es] the existence or truth of by proof or competent evidence.” Substantiate, Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (Unabridged ed. 2002); cf. State v. Boyse, 2013-NMSC-024, ¶ 9 , 303 P.3d 830 (recognizing that application of the plain language rule often entails reliance on dictionary definitions).

2023As 4 Taxpayer points out, a proposition is “substantiated” if it “establish[es] the existence 5 or truth of by proof or competent evidence.” Substantiate, Webster’s Third New Int’l 6 Dictionary (Unabridged ed. 2002); cf. State v. Boyse, 2013-NMSC-024, ¶ 9 , 303 7 P.3d 830 (recognizing that application of the plain language rule often entails 8 reliance on dictionary definitions).

2019Sch., 2016-NMCA-009, ¶ 6 , 365 P.3d 1 . 7 {9} While the simplicity of the plain language rule is attractive, we must 8 examine Appellants’ interpretation of Section 17-2-43.1(B) in relation to the entire 9 statute, so that we can ensure “words are not interpreted outside of any relevant 10 legislative context.” See State v. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 39 , 11 966 P.2d 747 .

2019Sch., 2016-NMCA-009, ¶ 6 , 365 P.3d 1 . {9} While the simplicity of the plain language rule is attractive, we must examine Appellants’ interpretation of Section 17-2-43.1(B) in relation to the entire statute, so that we can ensure “words are not interpreted outside of any relevant legislative context.” See State v. Martinez, 1998-NMSC-023, ¶ 9 , 126 N.M. 39 , 966 P.2d 747 .

2023As Taxpayer points out, a proposition is “substantiated” if it “establish[es] the existence or truth of by proof or competent evidence.” Substantiate, Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary (Unabridged ed. 2002); cf. State v. Boyse, 2013-NMSC-024, ¶ 9 , 303 P.3d 830 (recognizing that application of the plain language rule often entails reliance on dictionary definitions).

2023Our plain language review is not mechanical, however, as “[w]e interpret the Rules of Criminal Procedure with logic and common sense to avoid absurd results.” Walker v. Walton, 2003-NMSC-014, ¶ 11 , 133 N.M. 766 , 70 P.3d 756 . {11} Rule 7-506.1, titled “Voluntary dismissal and refiled proceedings,” provides in Rule 7-506.1(D): If a citation or complaint is dismissed without prejudice and the charges are later refiled, the case shall be treated as a continuation of the same case, and the trial on the refiled charges shall be commenced within the unexpired time for trial under Rule 7-506 NMRA,

2023Our plain language review is not mechanical, however, as “[w]e interpret the Rules of Criminal Procedure with logic and common sense to avoid absurd results.” Walker v. Walton, 2003-NMSC-014, ¶ 11 , 133 N.M. 766 , 70 P.3d 756 . {11} Rule 7-506.1, titled “Voluntary dismissal and refiled proceedings,” provides in Rule 7-506.1(D): If a citation or complaint is dismissed without prejudice and the charges are later refiled, the case shall be treated as a continuation of the same case, and the trial on the refiled charges shall be commenced within the unexpired time for trial under Rule 7-506 NMRA,

2022When a rule or order contains terms that are “clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation.” State v. Roeper, 2019-NMCA-001, ¶ 10 , 433 P.3d 311 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {16} Order 13-8500 states, in relevant part: A. All electronic court records, whether electronically filed or filed as a traditional paper court record and subsequently converted by the court into an electronic format, shall be considered the official record of the court and shall have the same force and effect as a traditional paper court

2022When a rule or order contains terms that are “clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation.” State v. Roeper, 2019-NMCA-001, ¶ 10 , 433 P.3d 311 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {16} Order 13-8500 states, in relevant part: A. All electronic court records, whether electronically filed or filed as a traditional paper court record and subsequently converted by the court into an electronic format, shall be considered the official record of the court and shall have the same force and effect as a traditional paper court

2021Id.

2021As we engage in this plain language analysis, we must be mindful “not [to] read into a statute any words that are not there, particularly when the statute is complete and makes sense as written.” State v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-012, ¶ 11 , 146 N.M. 14 , 206 P.3d 125 .

2021As we engage in this plain language analysis, we must be mindful “not [to] read into a statute any words that are not there, particularly when the statute is complete and makes sense as written.” State v. Trujillo, 2009-NMSC-012, ¶ 11 , 146 N.M. 14 , 206 P.3d 125 .

2021Bd., 2011-NMCA-020, ¶ 16 , 149 N.M. 455 , 250 P.3d 881 (“[O]nly where a plain language analysis does not provide a clear interpretation can we look to other statutes in pari materia in order to determine legislative intent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2021Bd., 2011-NMCA-020, ¶ 16 , 149 N.M. 455 , 250 P.3d 881 (“[O]nly where a plain language analysis does not provide a clear interpretation can we look to other statutes in pari materia in order to determine legislative intent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2021Bd., 2011-NMCA-020, ¶ 16 , 149 N.M. 455 , 250 P.3d 881 (“[O]nly where a plain language analysis does not provide a clear interpretation can we look to other statutes in pari materia in order to determine legislative intent.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2021We examine “the plain language of the rule as well as the context in which it was promulgated, including the history of the rule and the object and purpose[.]” Kipnis v. Jusbasche, 2017-NMSC-006, ¶ 11 , 388 P.3d 654 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2020See Chatterjee, 2012-NMSC-019, ¶ 11 (providing the plain language rule); State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, ¶ 10 , 146 N.M. 70 , 206 P.3d 579 (noting that “[w]e will not read into a statute language which is not there”). {42} The lack of any minimum guidance with regard to the class of persons whose conduct is governed by Subsection (C) renders it vague in two respects: (1) it fails to give people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know whether their conduct is prohibited because they have no notice as to whether they are a member of the class of persons contemplated under Subse

2020See Chatterjee, 2012-NMSC-019, ¶ 11 (providing the plain language rule); State v. Hubble, 2009-NMSC-014, ¶ 10 , 146 N.M. 70 , 206 P.3d 579 (noting that “[w]e will not read into a statute language which is not there”). {42} The lack of any minimum guidance with regard to the class of persons whose conduct is governed by Subsection (C) renders it vague in two respects: (1) it fails to give people of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know whether their conduct is prohibited because they have no notice as to whether they are a member of the class of persons contemplated under Subse

2020“If the language of the [rule] is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further . . . interpretation.” State v. Wilson, 2010- NMCA-018, ¶ 9, 147 N.M. 706 , 228 P.3d 490 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2020“If the language of the [rule] is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further . . . interpretation.” State v. Wilson, 2010- NMCA-018, ¶ 9, 147 N.M. 706 , 228 P.3d 490 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).