N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 20 / Article 1
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 20-1-4 (2026)

Governor to be commander-in-chief; enforcement of New

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Mexico Military Code.
    A. The governor shall be the commander-in-chief of the military forces, except so
much thereof as may be in the actual service of the United States, and may employ the
military forces for the defense or relief of the state, the enforcement of its law and the
protection of life and property therein.

   B. The adjutant general shall be the commanding general of New Mexico, and the
deputy adjutant general shall be the deputy commanding general of New Mexico.

    C. Whenever the governor or acting governor is unable to personally perform the
duties of commander-in-chief or whenever the governor so directs, the adjutant general
or, in the adjutant general's absence, the senior line officer of the national guard present
for duty with the troops shall command the military forces.

    D. The governor may appoint a staff consisting of the adjutant general and aides-
de-camp of field grade or higher who shall be detailed from the national guard or the
state defense force. The governor may designate honorarily other persons as colonels
aide-de-camp.

   E. The governor may, by executive orders, proclamations or regulations not
inconsistent with law, enforce all the provisions of the New Mexico Military Code.

History: 1978 Comp., § 20-1-4, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 318, § 4; 2021, ch. 55, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For governor as commander in chief of national guard, see N.M.
Const., art. XVIII, § 1.
The 2021 amendment, effective June 18, 2021, provided that the adjutant general is
the commanding general of New Mexico and that the deputy adjutant general is the
deputy commanding general of New Mexico; added a new Subsection B and
redesignated former Subsections B through D as Subsections C through E,
respectively; and in Subsection E, added "New Mexico" preceding "Military Code".

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 53 Am. Jur. 2d Military, and Civil
Defense §§ 3, 32.

6 C.J.S. Armed Services § 289.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1962–1990 · leading case: Mantz v. Follingstad, 505 P.2d 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mantz v. Follingstad, 505 P.2d 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “This claim has no merit because costs are taxed upon entry of judgment to the prevailing party, not at the time a complaint is filed.”
Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Anaya, 428 P.2d 640 (N.M. 1967). · cites it 2× “;[ Section 20-1-4, N.M.S.A.1953, provides that “witnesses shall be allowed * * * ” fees for attendance at court and for travel to and from the place of attendance.”
Hales v. Van Cleave, 429 P.2d 379 (N.M. Ct. App. 1967). · cites it 2× “” íjí # % 5{C i}C Section 20-1-4, subd. B, N.M.S.A. 1953, as amended in- 1959, provides the district court “ * * * may order the payment of a reasonable fee, to be taxed as costs * * *, for any witness who qualifies as an expert and who testifies in the cause in person or by…”
Mills v. Sw. Builders, Inc., 374 P.2d 289 (N.M. 1962). · cites it 2× “and Section 20-1-4, N.M.S.A.1953 Comp., the Court should allow the Plaintiff his costs incurred only for the second trial and as basis for such order the Court has determined that as a result of the first trial and the jury’s failure to return a verdict, the Plaintiff therein…”
Hanberry v. Fitzgerald, 384 P.2d 256 (N.M. 1963). “At such time as the costs are finally taxed, the trial court’s attention is directed to § 20-1-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp. 1961), particularly insofar as it relates to the limitation of expert witness fees which may be allowed, and the provisions of § 25-1-9, N.”
Goolsby v. Pucci Distrib. Co., 451 P.2d 308 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). “1); § 20-1-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1967). However, such a cost is taxed after the hearing, and not as a condition to holding the hearing.”
Mathis v. Trailways Lines, Inc., 804 P.2d 1111 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). “After so holding, we said, “If unsuccessful, the trial court may assess against plaintiff, as costs, the fee of an expert witness who testifies for the defense under subpoena.”
Gilman v. Powers, 488 P.2d 337 (N.M. 1971). · cites it 2× “Section 20-1-4, subd. B, N.M.S.A. (Repl.Vol.”
— N.M. Stat. § 20-1-4(B) — 1 case
Mantz v. Follingstad, 505 P.2d 68 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). “This claim has no merit because costs are taxed upon entry of judgment to the prevailing party, not at the time a complaint is filed.”
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.