N.M. Stat. » Chapter 30 — Criminal Offenses
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-1-6 (2026)

Classified crimes defined

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

A. A crime is a felony if it is so designated by law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of death or of imprisonment for a term of one year or more is authorized.

B. A crime is a misdemeanor if it is so designated by law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of imprisonment in excess of six months but less than one year is authorized.

C. A crime is a petty misdemeanor if it is so designated by law or if upon conviction thereof a sentence of imprisonment for six months or less is authorized.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-1-6, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 1-6.

ANNOTATIONS

Police officer may make warrantless arrest for misdemeanor if he has probable cause to believe the offense occurred in his presence. Tanberg v. Shlotis, 401 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2005).

Special statute controls over general. — This section and Section 31-19-1 NMSA 1978 refer generally to the sentence for misdemeanors; former 64-10-1, 1953 Comp., relating to fraudulent applications in motor vehicle registration and the like, provides a specific sentence for that misdemeanor. If the general statute, standing alone, would include the same matter as the special statute and thus conflict with the special statute, the special statute controls since it is considered an exception to the general statute. State v. Sawyers, 1968-NMCA-051, 79 N.M. 557, 445 P.2d 978.

Classification of criminal contempt in discretion of courts. — Where the sole punishment of the criminal contemnor is a fine the New Mexico courts are free to make their own determination as to what is a "petty" and what is a "serious" offense, guided by the standards of District of Columbia v. Clawans, 300 U.S. 617, 57 S. Ct. 660, 81 L. Ed. 843 (1937) and other federal cases. Seven Rivers Farm, Inc. v. Reynolds, 1973- NMSC-039, 84 N.M. 789, 508 P.2d 1276.

Penalty imposed as indication of nature of offense. — Under the rule in Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 384 U.S. 373, 86 S.Ct. 1523, 16 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1966), when the legislature has not expressed a judgment as to the seriousness of an offense by fixing a maximum penalty which may be imposed, the court is to look to the penalty actually imposed as the best evidence of the seriousness of the offense. Seven Rivers Farm, Inc. v. Reynolds, 1973-NMSC-039, 84 N.M. 789, 508 P.2d 1276; In re D'Angelo, 1986- NMSC-052, 105 N.M. 391, 733 P.2d 360.

Falsely obtaining unemployment benefits is petty misdemeanor. — When Subsection C is read together with Section 51-1-38 NMSA 1978, it is clear that the crime of falsely obtaining unemployment benefits is a petty misdemeanor, for which the statute of limitations is one year under Section 30-1-8F NMSA 1978. Robinson v. Short, 1979-NMSC-099, 93 N.M. 610, 603 P.2d 720 (decided under prior law, now Section 30- 1-8 NMSA 1978).

Violation of municipal ordinance constitutes petty misdemeanor because imprisonment may not exceed 90 days. State v. Luna, 1980-NMSC-009, 93 N.M. 773, 606 P.2d 183 (decided under prior law, now Section 3-17-11 NMSA 1978).

Effect of altering classification of crime. — Statute under which the placing of poison in food for dogs would be a misdemeanor (Laws 1912, ch. 38, § 2, 40-4-1, 1953 Comp.) was impliedly repealed by subsequent statute (Laws 1919, ch. 82, § 1, 40-4-2, 1953 Comp.) making such offense a felony, under rule that if the same offense, identified by name or otherwise, is altered in degree or incidents, or if a felony is changed to a misdemeanor, or vice versa, the statute making such changes has the effect of repealing the former act. State v. Anderson, 1936-NMSC-016, 40 N.M. 173, 56 P.2d 1134.

Federal right to jury trial for contempt. — So long as the fine for criminal contempt which is, or may be, imposed is not more than $1000, there is no federal constitutional right to jury trial as the crime is a petty offense, nor need prosecution be by information. Seven Rivers Farm, Inc. v. Reynolds, 1973-NMSC-039, 84 N.M. 789, 508 P.2d 1276. Jury trial of misdemeanor. — Those misdemeanors triable in district court do not provide for a trial by jury unless such crime was of the type which enjoyed and permitted trial by jury at the time of the adoption of N.M. Const., art. II, § 12. 1964 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 64-37.

Jury trial of misdemeanor. — Persons charged with offenses classified as misdemeanors under the Motor Vehicle Code may under Rule 23, N.M.R. Crim. P. (Magis. Cts.) (now see Rule 6-602) demand a jury trial but are not afforded one as a matter of right. 1979 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 79-17.

Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico criminal procedure, see 16 N.M.L. Rev. 25 (1986).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 21 Am. Jur. 2d Criminal Law §§ 19, 28 to 30.

Determination of character of former crime as a felony, so as to warrant punishment of an accused as a second offender, 19 A.L.R.2d 227.

22 C.J.S. Criminal Law §§ 9 to 12.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1960–2012 · leading case: State v. Off. of the Pub. Def. ex rel. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, 285 P.3d 622.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Off. of the Pub. Def. ex rel. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, 285 P.3d 622. · cites it 2× “This would carry a possible sentence of one and a half years of incarceration, see NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6 (1963), already a steep punishment for the crime of attempting to steal a relatively small amount of gasoline.”
State v. Trevizo, 2011-NMCA-069, 257 P.3d 978. · cites it 4× “Alternatively, the State argues that because the crimes of DWI and reckless driving are found outside of the Criminal Code, the three-year statute of limitations provided for in Subsection (G) applies.”
State v. Moya, 2007-NMSC-027, 161 P.3d 862. · cites it 2× “2006); NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6(A) (1963); Tenn.Code Ann.”
State v. Lopez, 2000-NMCA-001, 993 P.2d 767. · cites it 3× “” NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6(A) (1963); see also NMSA 1978, § 31-1-2(D) (1979).”
State v. Sandoval, 683 P.2d 516 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “See Section 66—8—102(E); NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6. Thus, a citation could not be construed to take the place of more conventional charging procedures in the cases before us.”
Jones v. State, 23 A.3d 880 (Md. 2011). “9 (LexisNexis 2007); N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-1-6 (1978, 2010 Cum.”
Mills v. Kelly, 660 P.2d 124 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983). “Tracing the history of § 45-2-502(B), supra, it is apparent that the wording of the statute is substantially unchanged from the language adopted by Laws 1889, Chapter 90, Section 2 (§ 30-1-6, supra). As observed in In re Akin’s Estate, supra, the California statutes regarding…”
Matter of Est. of Padilla, 641 P.2d 539 (N.M. Ct. App. 1982). “The statute in effect at the time decedent executed his Will was § 30-1-6, N.M.S.A.1953 Comp. It reads: The witnesses to a written will must be present, see the testator sign the will * * and must sign as witnesses at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other.”
McElhinney v. Kelly, 356 P.2d 113 (N.M. 1960). “It is contended that the will was not attested as required by § 30-1-6 N.M.S.A. 1953 Comp., which reads: “The witnesses to a written will must be present, see the testator sign the will, or some one sign it for him at his request as and for his last will and testament, and must…”
Robinson v. Short, 603 P.2d 720 (N.M. 1979). · cites it 2× “Section 30-1-6, which specifies the degree of a crime according to its authorized penalty, would be purposeless unless read together with other criminal statutes.”
Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 556 P.2d 345 (N.M. 1976). “We further know that neither New Mexico, Utah nor Virginia, in which last mentioned state this “de facto marriage” supposedly was consummated and existed, recognizes any marriage consummated therein which is not formally consummated by contract and solemnized before an official.”
Hazlewood v. Hazlewood, 556 P.2d 345 (N.M. 1976). “We further know that neither New Mexico, Utah nor Virginia, in which last mentioned state this "de facto marriage" supposedly was consummated and existed, recognizes any marriage consummated therein which is not formally consummated by contract and solemnized before an official.”
N.M. Stat. § 30-1-6(A): 2 cases
State v. Moya, 2007-NMSC-027, 161 P.3d 862. “2006); NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6(A) (1963); Tenn.Code Ann.”
State v. Lopez, 2000-NMCA-001, 993 P.2d 767. “” NMSA 1978, § 30-1-6(A) (1963); see also NMSA 1978, § 31-1-2(D) (1979).”
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.