N.M. Stat. » Chapter 21 — State and Private Education Institutions
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 21-5-3 (2026)

Recompiled

✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

ANNOTATIONS Recompilations. — Laws 1983, ch. 60, § 3, recompiled former 21-5-3 NMSA 1978 as 22-14-20 NMSA 1978, effective June 17, 1983.

Laws 1983, ch. 60, contained no effective date provision, but was enacted at the session which adjourned on March 19, 1983. See N.M. Const., art. IV, § 23.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1967–1981 · leading case: State v. Montoya, 451 P.2d 557 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Montoya, 451 P.2d 557 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 20× “The venue in all civil and criminal cases shall be changed, upon motion, to some county free from exception: "* * * "(2) when the party moving for a change files in the case an affidavit of himself, his agent or attorney, that he believes he cannot obtain a fair trial in the…”
State v. Valdez, 495 P.2d 1079 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 10× “Section 21-5-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4).”
State v. Martinez, 623 P.2d 565 (N.M. 1981). · cites it 5× “These statutes, Sections 21-5-3 and 21-5 — 4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.”
State v. Aull, 435 P.2d 437 (N.M. 1967). · cites it 4× “■ When a motion for change based upon that ground requests a change to a county, outside the district, subsection (B) of § 21-5-3 limits the time within which such motion must be filed to the first day of the next regular or special term of 'court.”
State v. Lunn, 537 P.2d 672 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 8× “" Underlying defendant's argument on this point is a challenge to the trial court's view of the interrelationship between §§ 21-5-3 and 21-5-4, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.”
State v. Tijerina, 504 P.2d 642 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 5× “It held, (1) under common law, in a proper case and in the exercise of its discretion, a trial court had the power to order such change of venue sua sponte; (2) § 21-5-3, N.M.S.A. (Repl. Vol. 4) did not preclude sua sponte action by the trial court.”
State v. Lindsey, 464 P.2d 903 (N.M. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 3× “The Montoya, Childers and Alaniz cases, insofar as here material, were concerned with the effect of a timely filed motion which complied with the provisions of § 21-5-3, N.M.S.A.1953, or the amended version thereof, which appears as § 21-5-3, N.”
Deats v. State, 451 P.2d 981 (N.M. 1969). · cites it 3× “1953, was interpreted and it was held that, “Where the defendant files a proper motion for a change of venue, which is duly supported, showing that the state of feeling in a county is such that he cannot obtain a fair trial, and those charges are not controverted, the defendant…”
McCauley v. Ray, 453 P.2d 192 (N.M. 1968). · cites it 2× “The relevant statutes in this matter are § 21-5-3, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., 1967 Pocket Supp.”
State v. Turner, 559 P.2d 1206 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “The mandatory provisions of § 21-5-3, supra, become discretionary once additional evidence is requested.”
Valdez v. State, 497 P.2d 231 (N.M. 1972). · cites it 2× “Although § 21-5-3, supra, and related statutes completely cover the ground as to how, when and by what procedures a party may seek a change of venue, we find nothing in these statutes which precludes sua sponte action by the trial court.”
State v. Rushing, 514 P.2d 297 (N.M. 1973). “For several days prior to the election, the public, apparently in small groups, were permitted to go through the jail with a deputy sheriff as an escort.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
N.M. Stat. § 21-5-3(33): 1 case
State v. Valdez, 495 P.2d 1079 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). “Section 21-5-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4).”
N.M. Stat. § 21-5-3(A): 1 case
State v. Aull, 435 P.2d 437 (N.M. 1967). “■ When a motion for change based upon that ground requests a change to a county, outside the district, subsection (B) of § 21-5-3 limits the time within which such motion must be filed to the first day of the next regular or special term of 'court.”
N.M. Stat. § 21-5-3(A)(2)(c): 2 cases
State v. Turner, 559 P.2d 1206 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976). “The mandatory provisions of § 21-5-3, supra, become discretionary once additional evidence is requested.”
State v. Lunn, 537 P.2d 672 (N.M. Ct. App. 1975). “" Underlying defendant's argument on this point is a challenge to the trial court's view of the interrelationship between §§ 21-5-3 and 21-5-4, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.”
N.M. Stat. § 21-5-3(B): 3 cases
State v. Valdez, 495 P.2d 1079 (N.M. Ct. App. 1972). “Section 21-5-3, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 4).”
Valdez v. State, 497 P.2d 231 (N.M. 1972). “Although § 21-5-3, supra, and related statutes completely cover the ground as to how, when and by what procedures a party may seek a change of venue, we find nothing in these statutes which precludes sua sponte action by the trial court.”
Askew v. Fort Sumner Irrigation Dist., 448 P.2d 183 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968).
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.