N.M. Stat. § 30-1-2 (2026)

The Criminal Code has no application to crimes committed prior to its effective date.

   A crime is committed prior to the effective date of the Criminal Code if any of the
essential elements of the crime occurred before that date.

   Prosecutions for prior crimes shall be governed, prosecuted and punished under the
laws existing at the time such crimes were committed.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-1-2, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 1-2.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Indian country. — Where a state road, which was built on land owned by the federal
government and administered by the United States forest service pursuant to an
easement granted to the state by the forest service, served as the border between two
pueblos, but was not within either pueblo and where there has been no explicit
congressional or executive action recognizing the property as Indian country or
transferring the property for the use of Indians or to the bureau of Indian affairs, the road
was not located in Indian country for purposes of criminal jurisdiction. State v. Quintana,
2008-NMSC-012, 143 N.M. 535, 178 P.3d 820, aff’g 2008-NMCA-025, 143 N.M. 538,
178 P.3d 823.

A person need not be enrolled in a tribe to be recognized as an Indian for
purposes of criminal jurisdiction. — Where the state filed a petition to revoke
defendant's probation, alleging that he violated a condition of his probation by
committing two new offenses, battery on a household member and criminal damage to
property, and that the charged offenses occurred on the Mescalero Apache reservation
and that the offenses involved two non-tribal members, but where defendant presented
additional facts by proffer that he is 7/32 Mescalero by blood, that he is an affiliate of the
tribe, that he attended school on the reservation, and that he receives services on the
reservation, the district court erred in denying defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction because enrollment as a member of a recognized tribe or pueblo is not a
mandatory prerequisite for Indian status. A court must consider other factors to
determine whether tribal or federal recognition as an Indian is satisfied. State v.
Salazar, 2020-NMCA-021.

This section was enacted as a transitional rule prior to the enactment of the Criminal
Code. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d 8, cert. quashed, 2005-
NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.

Application of savings clause of this section. — Based upon the savings clause of
the Criminal Code, found in this section, and N.M. Const., art. IV, § 33, providing that no
person shall be exempt from prosecution for any crime by reason of repeal of the law in
question, the court correctly applied former 41-16-1, 1953 Comp., the Habitual Criminal
Act (now Section 31-18-17 NMSA 1978), when sentence was imposed on defendant.
State v. Tipton, 1967-NMSC-270, 78 N.M. 600, 435 P.2d 430.

Section conflict with Section 12-2A-16 NMSA 1978. — To the extent 12-2A-16
NMSA 1978, enacted in 1997, and this section, enacted in 1963, conflict, the latter
enactment supercedes the prior. State v. Shay, 2004-NMCA-077, 136 N.M. 8, 94 P.3d
8, cert. quashed, 2005-NMCERT-002, 137 N.M. 266, 110 P.3d 74.