N.M. Stat. § 30-15-1 (2026)

Criminal damage to property consists of intentionally damaging any real or personal
property of another without the consent of the owner of the property.

    Whoever commits criminal damage to property is guilty of a petty misdemeanor,
except that when the damage to the property amounts to more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000) he is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-15-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 15-1.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For destruction of newspapers kept by county clerk, see 4-40-10
NMSA 1978.

For authority of conservation officers to enforce these provisions under emergency
circumstances, see 17-2-19 NMSA 1978.

For polluting of water, see 30-8-2 NMSA 1978.

For destruction of cemetery property, see 30-12-13 NMSA 1978.

For criminal trespass, see 30-14-1 NMSA 1978.

For liability of parents for destruction of property by child, see 32A-2-27 NMSA 1978.

For flooding of highway, see 67-7-4 NMSA 1978.

For interference with or changing of water measuring devices, see 72-5-20 NMSA 1978.

For injury and interference with waterworks, see 72-8-1 and 72-8-3 NMSA 1978.

For interference with community ditches, see 73-2-64 NMSA 1978.

For injuring of survey marks, see 73-17-5 NMSA 1978.

For injuring of fence, see 77-16-10 NMSA 1978.
The replacement cost of irreparable items is an appropriate measure of the value
of the items. State v. Cobrera 2013-NMSC-012, 300 P.3d 729.

The purchase price of an item was sufficient evidence of replacement cost. —
Where defendant damaged household goods of defendant’s estranged spouse; and the
state’s evidence showed that the purchase price of the irreparably damaged items was
greater than $1,000, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude
that the replacement cost of the items was greater than $1,000. State v. Cobrera 2013-
NMSC-012, 300 P.3d 729.

Determining damage amount for felony criminal damage to property. — The
damage amount for felony criminal damage to property is the cost of repair or
replacement cost, whichever is less. The state bears the burden of proving the
replacement cost of the damaged property. State v. Fernandez, 2015-NMCA-091.

Where defendant kicked victim’s twelve-year-old pickup truck, causing a large dent in
the door of victim’s vehicle and then struck victim’s truck with defendant’s own vehicle,
and the state presented evidence at trial that the cost of repair of victim’s truck was
between $1,500 and $1,600, but failed to offer evidence regarding replacement cost,
there was insufficient evidence to convict defendant of felony criminal damage to
property, because the state was required to submit evidence as to replacement cost so
that the jury could reasonably determine whether it exceeded the cost of repair. State v.
Fernandez, 2015-NMCA-091.

Criminal damage to property was a lesser included offense of breaking and
entering. — Where defendant attempted to force entry into an apartment through the
front door; the occupants of the apartment struggled to hold the door closed; defendant
pushed the occupants back into the apartment about a foot and stepped into the
apartment; while one occupant of the apartment attempted to call 911, defendant
walked away; and when the other occupant opened the door to see which way
defendant had gone, defendant returned and began kicking the door, defendant’s initial
act of trying to force open the door of the apartment and then returning minutes later to
kick the door was unitary conduct and defendant’s conviction of criminal damage to
property, which was a lesser included offense of defendant’s conviction of breaking and
entering, violated defendant’s right to be free from double jeopardy. State v.
Sorrelhorse, 2011-NMCA-095, 150 N.M. 536, 263 P.3d 313, cert. denied, 2011-
NMCERT-008, 268 P.3d 513.

Cost of repair. — The cost of repair alone is sufficient to support a conviction for
criminal damage to property. State v. Barreras, 2007-NMCA-067, 141 N.M. 653, 159
P.3d 1138.

Insufficient evidence to establish damage was over $1,000. — Where defendant
was charged with criminal damage to property over $1000, and where, at trial, the state
presented evidence that after defendant was arrested and placed in the back of the
officer's patrol car, defendant became erratic and kicked and cracked the plexiglass
divider and that the estimated cost of repair was $1,710, which included a drive time
and mileage charge for the transport of the patrol car from Carlsbad to Albuquerque,
New Mexico, and back, the state erred in including the cost of the technician's travel to
Carlsbad from Albuquerque to work on the police car, because nothing in the language
of the statute or the uniform jury instruction, UJI 14-1510 NMRA, states that additional
charges or costs can be included in the "repair or replacement cost" of the item
damaged. Thus, there was insufficient evidence at trial for a jury to convict defendant of
criminal damage to property over $1,000. State v. Fierro, 2024-NMCA-016.

Lesser included offenses. — Entrustment and conversion are not elements of criminal
damage to property. State v. Archie, 1997-NMCA-058, 123 N.M. 503, 943 P.2d 537.

Defendant charged under this section and vehicle tampering statute. — Where
defendant caused damage in excess of $1000 to a vehicle, the general/specific rule did
not apply to prevent a charge of criminal damage to property under this section, on the
basis that defendant could only be charged under Section 66-3-506 NMSA 1978 (now
Section 30-16D-5 NMSA 1978), prohibiting injuring or tampering with a vehicle. State v.
Arellano, 1997-NMCA-074, 123 N.M. 589, 943 P.2d 1042, cert. quashed, 124 N.M. 589,
953 P.2d 1087 (1998).

Community property of defendant. — This section does not criminalize damage to
community property one owns; such property is not "property of another" for purposes
of this section. State v. Powels, 2003-NMCA-090, 134 N.M. 118, 73 P.3d 256.

Equitable owner of property. — The equitable owner of property under a real estate
contract cannot be criminally charged with damaging that property. State v. Earp, 2014-
NMCA-059.

Where defendant purchased a home pursuant to a real estate contract; when defendant
failed to pay the balance due on the contract, the seller terminated the contract; prior to
vacating the property, defendant removed a number of appliances and fixtures from the
house and left the house in a state of disrepair; and defendant was charged with
criminal damage to property, 30-15-1 NMSA 1978 did not apply to property in which
defendant had an equitable ownership interest. State v. Earp, 2014-NMCA-059.

Defense of habitation. — Question whether force used by a person in defense of
habitation exceeded what was reasonably necessary was for the jury to resolve upon
appropriate instructions by the trial judge. State v. Couch, 1946-NMSC-047, 52 N.M.
127, 193 P.2d 405.

The defense of habitation alone, without a statute making it a felony to unlawfully and
maliciously injure a house, gave householder the right to meet force with force, and "an
attack upon a dwelling, and especially in the night, the law regards as equivalent to an
assault on a man's person, for a man's house is his castle." State v. Couch, 1946-
NMSC-047, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405.
When one's home was attacked in the middle of a dark night by persons riding in an
automobile, the householder, being unable to determine what weapons the assailants
had, was not obliged to retreat but might pursue his adversaries until he found himself
out of danger. State v. Couch, 1946-NMSC-047, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405.

Resistance to commission of felony. — While no law countenanced wanton slaying,
the protection and security of life being the most vital interest of society, the law of
defense of habitation and the resistance to the commission of a felony thereon gave
householder right to kill aggressor, if such killing was necessary or apparently
necessary to prevent or repel the felonious aggression. State v. Couch, 1946-NMSC-
047, 52 N.M. 127, 193 P.2d 405.

Tort liability for injury to trespasser. — As a matter of law the use of a gun by owner
while stopping trespass or theft of watermelons by group of boys was not permissible,
and when owner fired gun he became liable to injured boy. Brown v. Martinez, 1961-
NMSC-040, 68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152.

Sufficiency of evidence. — Evidence was sufficient to support an inference that
damages were at least $1,000. State v. Haar, 1990-NMCA-076, 110 N.M. 517, 797 P.2d
306, cert. denied, 110 N.M. 330, 795 P.2d 1022.

Sufficient evidence. — Where the evidence showed that defendant bashed out the
windows of a truck with a baseball bat, threw rocks at the truck and through the
windows of the truck, kicked the truck, tore the face plate off of the stereo in the truck in
an attempt to take the stereo, which damaged the entire stereo system, destroyed the
rearview mirror in truck, and irreparably damaged the ignition column of the truck, the
evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of criminal damage to
property. State v. Dickert, 2012-NMCA-004, 268 P.3d 515, cert. denied, 2011-
NMCERT-012.

Insufficient evidence of intent to damage the property of another. — Where
defendant was convicted of criminal damage to property based on DNA evidence found
in a burglarized house, there was insufficient evidence to permit a rational jury to find
the essential facts to establish each element of the crime of criminal damage to property
beyond a reasonable doubt, because although there was evidence that defendant had
entered the property without authorization, the state, without presenting any evidence
linking defendant to the property damage, failed to establish, either directly or by
circumstantial evidence, that defendant intentionally damaged the property of another.
State v. Ledbetter, 2020-NMCA-046.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 52 Am. Jur. 2d Malicious Mischief §§ 1
to 11.

Liability for injury to property occasioned by oil, water or the like flowing from well, 19
A.L.R.2d 1025.
Liability for damage to automobile left in parking lot or garage, 13 A.L.R.4th 442.

54 C.J.S. Malicious or Criminal Mischief or Damage to Property §§ 1 to 11.