N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 10 / Article 16
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 10-16-17 (2026)

Criminal penalties.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Unless specified otherwise in the Governmental Conduct Act, any person who
knowingly and willfully violates any of the provisions of that act is guilty of a
misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars
($1,000) or by imprisonment for not more than one year or both. Nothing in the
Governmental Conduct Act shall preclude criminal prosecution for bribery or other
provisions of law set forth in the constitution of New Mexico or by statute.

History: Laws 1993, ch. 46, § 37.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

The legislature intended NMSA 1978, § 10-16-3(A)-(C) to be applied as ethical
principles excepted from the scope of this section. — In consolidated cases, where
petitioners were each charged under two or three subsections of the Governmental
Conduct Act, and where the district court dismissed the charges in all four cases on
different grounds, the district courts did not err in dismissing charges under 10-16-3
NMSA 1978, Subsections (A) through (C), because the plain language of Subsections
(A) through (C) demonstrate a legislative intent that these subsections be applied as
ethical principles rather than as criminal statutes within the scope of 10-16-17 NMSA
1978. Each relevant subjection communicates a general goal or proscription without
specifying a wrongful deed or forbidden act. State v. Gutierrez, 2023-NMSC-002, rev'g
2020-NMCA-045, 472 P.3d 1260.

Legislative intent for willful and knowing violations. — The plain meaning of § 10-
16-3 NMSA 1978 and § 10-16-17 NMSA 1978 indicates a legislative intent to provide for
a misdemeanor penalty for a knowing and willful violation of the provisions of §§ 10-16-
3(A) through § 10-16-3(C) NMSA 1978. State v. Gutierrez, 2020-NMCA-045, cert.
granted.

In four separate cases, consolidated for appeal, where each case arose from an
allegation of misconduct by a government official, and where the district court in each
case dismissed the charges against the defendants, finding that violations of §§ 10-16-
3(A) through § 10-16-3(C) NMSA 1978 were not crimes but ethical considerations and
therefore the indictments failed to allege the commission of a criminal offense, or that
even if Subsections A through C provided for criminal offenses, they were nevertheless
void for vagueness, the district courts' dismissals of the counts charging defendants
under Subsection A were improper because the plain meaning of § 10-16-3 NMSA 1978
and § 10-16-17 NMSA 1978 indicates a legislative intent to provide for a misdemeanor
penalty for a knowing and willful violation of Subsection A, but the dismissals of the
counts charging defendants under Subsections B through C were proper because those
subsections fail to provide persons of ordinary intelligence a fair opportunity to
determine whether their conduct is prohibited. State v. Gutierrez, 2020-NMCA-045,
cert. granted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2020–2022 · leading case: State v. Gutierrez, 523 P.3d 560 (N.M. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gutierrez, 523 P.3d 560 (N.M. 2022). · cites it 45× “{2} The Court of Appeals first concluded that the Legislature intended for violations of Subsections (A)-(C) to be punishable as crimes, relying on its plain-meaning statutory interpretation of the GCA’s penalty provision, § 10-16-17 (“Criminal penalties”).”
State v. Gutierrez, 2020 NMCA 045 (N.M. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 46× “The district court concluded that although Section 10-16-3 establishes “advisory guideposts setting forth standards of ethical conduct[,]” insurmountable ambiguities existed regarding its intended scope and the applicability of Section 10-16-17’s provision for criminal penalties.”
State v. Gutierrez (N.M. 2022). · cites it 39× “13 {2} The Court of Appeals first concluded that the Legislature intended for 14 violations of Subsections (A)-(C) to be punishable as crimes, relying on its plain- 15 meaning statutory interpretation of the GCA’s penalty provision, § 10-16-17 16 (“Criminal penalties”).”
State v. White (N.M. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “VII, Section 4, NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-13(C) (1993) and NMSA 1978, Section 31-18-15(A)(13) (2016, amended 2019); and ethical principles of public service, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 10-16- 3(A)-(B) (2011) and NMSA 1978, Section 10-16-17 (1993).1 {3} During the hearing, the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.