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

N.M. Stat. § 30-16-26 (2026)

Theft of a credit card by taking or retaining possession of

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

card taken. A person who takes a credit card from the person, possession, custody or control of another without the cardholder's consent, or who with knowledge that it has been so taken, acquires or possesses a credit card with the intent to use it or to sell it, or to transfer it to a person other than the issuer or the cardholder, is guilty of a fourth degree felony. Taking a credit card without consent includes obtaining it by conduct defined or known as statutory larceny, common-law larceny by trespassory taking, common-law larceny by trick, embezzlement or obtaining property by false pretense, false promise or extortion.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-16-25, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 239, § 2.

ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1971, ch. 239, § 15, repealed 40A-16-25, 1953 Comp., relating to false statements of financial condition, and Laws 1971, ch. 239, § 2, enacted a new section.

Constitutionality. — Sections 30-16-26 and 30-16-27 NMSA 1978 are not unconstitutionally vague. State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009, 116 N.M. 793, 867 P.2d 1175.

Intent. — Section 30-16-26 NMSA 1978 requires actual knowledge that the credit card was wrongfully taken at the time it was acquired, whereas Section 30-16-27 NMSA 1978 applies when the possessor of the card merely has reason to know of the stolen, mislaid, or mistakenly delivered nature of the card, which knowledge could be gained at any time during the possession. Further, Section 30-16-26 appears to proscribe acquisition with the requisite intent, whereas one can legitimately acquire a stolen credit card under Section 30-16-27 and if one develops the requisite intent later one would not be guilty until that time. State v. Wilson, 1994-NMSC-009, 116 N.M. 793, 867 P.2d 1175.

Double jeopardy. — Municipal court conviction of larceny is not the same offense for purposes of double jeopardy as a district court conviction of theft of a credit card. State v. Rodriguez, 2005-NMSC-019, 138 N.M. 21, 116 P.3d 92.

Larceny is lesser included offense of theft of a credit card. State v. Rodriguez, 2005- NMSC-019, 138 N.M. 21, 116 P.3d 92.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Criminal liability for unauthorized use of credit card, 24 A.L.R.3d 986.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: State v. Wilson, 867 P.2d 1175 (N.M. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wilson, 867 P.2d 1175 (N.M. 1994). · cites it 11× “1993), and of felony possession of stolen credit cards under NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-26 (Repl.Pamp.1984). He appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, and, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 34-5-14(C) (Repl.”
State v. Rodriguez, 2005-NMSC-019, 116 P.3d 92. · cites it 16× “{1} Following a jury trial, Defendant Freddie Rodriguez was convicted of tampering with evidence, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-22-5 (1963, prior to 2003 amendment), conspiracy to commit tampering with evidence, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-28-2 (1979), theft of a credit…”
State v. Morales, No. 29,311 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 23, 2010). · cites it 5× “NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-26 (1971) prohibits the theft of 13 a credit card by taking or retaining possession of a credit card known to be stolen.”
State v. Herrera (N.M. 2023). · cites it 2× “1 (2003, amended 5 2022), receiving or transferring a stolen vehicle or motor vehicle contrary to NMSA 6 1978, Section 30-16D-4 (2009), resisting, evading, or obstructing an officer contrary 7 to NMSA 1978, Section 30-22-1 (1981), attempt to disarm a peace officer contrary 8 to…”
State v. Gonzalez, No. 32,179 (N.M. Ct. App. Nov. 28, 2012). · cites it 2× “[MIO 4] In order to convict Defendant of theft of a credit card, the State 10 was required to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) Defendant took 11 from the possession, custody, or control of another a credit card issued to Santiago 12 Rentas without the…”
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.