Whenever any portion of the militia is in active service of the state in aid of civil
authority, the governor, if in his judgment the maintenance of law and order will thereby
be promoted, may by proclamation declare a specified area in which the troops are
serving to be in a state of insurrection and may declare martial law therein.
History: 1978 Comp., § 20-2-4, enacted by Laws 1987, ch. 318, § 11.
ANNOTATIONS
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1987, Chapter 318 repealed former 20-2-4
NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1925, ch. 113, § 3, relating to the classification of
militia, and enacted a new section, effective April 10, 1987.
Cross references. — For constitutional power of governor to call out militia, see N.M.
Const., art. V, § 4.
Declaration conclusive. — The governor need not set out in his proclamation why
martial law is declared and his declaration is conclusive. 1943 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 43-
4252.
Effects of using militia. — Where the governor of the state, seeking to quell
insurrection, calls out the militia by executive process and puts them in charge, such
military forces do not act as sheriffs or deputy sheriffs, but their power supersedes the
civil authorities; the courts may not, under writs of habeas corpus, interfere with their
arrests made during insurrection. State ex rel. Roberts v. Swope, 1933-NMSC-097, 38
N.M. 53, 28 P.2d 4.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 53 Am. Jur. 2d Military, and Civil
Defense §§ 3, 32.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 1959–1979 · leading case:
State v. McFerran, 459 P.2d 148 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969).
State v. McFerran, 459 P.2d 148 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969).
· cites it 4× “Section 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 provides that the bad moral character of a witness may be shown for the purpose' of attacking his credibility.”
State v. Miller, 590 P.2d 1175 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 5× “In Madrid, supra, the two questions asked were proper under § 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4). See State v.”
State v. Torres, 469 P.2d 166 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).
· cites it 2× “Section 20-2-4, N.M.S.A. 1953 not only authorizes such questioning but also authorizes questions as to specific acts of misconduct.”
State v. Polsky, 482 P.2d 257 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Section 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. 4, 1970).”
Mead v. O'connor, 344 P.2d 478 (N.M. 1959).
· cites it 2× “See Morgan “Basic Problems of Evidence,” 1957 Ed.”
State v. Madrid, 495 P.2d 383 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Madrid, isn’t it true that •on November 27, 1970 that you removed a •color television set from the residence of Esther Cassell, 1811 Girard [Southeast without authority or permission] ?” As ■originally asked, the bracketed words were not included in the question.”
State v. Mordecai, 490 P.2d 466 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Defendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to permit testimony to impeach earlier testimony of the State’s undercover agent. The testimony sought to be impeached was that given on cross-examination of the agent by the defendant, and concerned aspects of the…”
Martinez ex rel. Martinez v. Avila, 415 P.2d 59 (N.M. 1966).
· cites it 2× “The trial court permitted the introduction of the records on the single theory that it was a proper method of impeachment of the credibility of a witness under the provisions of § 20-2-4, N.”
State v. Duran, 496 P.2d 1096 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972).
“Thus, defendant would invoke cases interpreting § 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4) which hold that the cross-examiner is bound by the answers to questions concerning specific acts of misconduct and may not introduce independent evidence as to that misconduct.”
State v. Baca, 472 P.2d 651 (N.M. Ct. App. 1970).
“Under § 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 questioning as to specific acts of misconduct is proper cross-examination.”
State v. Biswell, 488 P.2d 115 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 3× “The question was permitted under § 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1970) which permits impeachment by showing “bad moral character.”
State v. Garcia, 490 P.2d 1235 (N.M. Ct. App. 1971).
“4), and “The credit of a witness may be impeached by general evidence of bad moral character not restricted to his reputation for truth and veracity; * * * ” § 20-2-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4). “The trial court is allowed a broad discretion in controlling the extent of…”
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.