New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 30-31-1 (2026)
Short title.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Chapter 30, Article 31 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Controlled Substances Act".
History: 1953 Comp., § 54-11-1, enacted by Laws 1972, ch. 84, § 1; 2005, ch. 280, § 1.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, added the statutory reference to the
act.
Civil and criminal penalties. — The Double Jeopardy Clause of the New Mexico
constitution does not prohibit the legislature from assessing both civil and criminal
penalties for violations of the Controlled Substances Act. However, if the state elects to
seek both criminal conviction and forfeiture of assets, the penalties must be parsed in a
single, bifurcated proceeding. State v. Esparza, 2003-NMCA-075, 133 N.M. 772, 70
P.3d 762, cert. denied, 133 N.M. 771, 70 P.3d 761.
Constitutionality. — The title of Laws 1972, Chapter 84 does not violate N.M. Const.,
art. IV, § 16 by embracing more than one subject, because although the act amends
sections of the state Drug and Cosmetic Act, the amendments are all concerned with
drugs. State v. Romero, 1974-NMCA-015, 86 N.M. 99, 519 P.2d 1180.
Uniform scheme for controlling registrants and nonregistrants. — The legislature
did not establish a parallel scheme for punishing violations of the Controlled Substances
Act. That is, there is not one system for controlling registrants authorized to conduct
transactions in controlled substances and another for nonregistrants. The punishment
for violating a provision of the act depends not on the offender's status but on the nature
of the violation. State v. Carr, 1981-NMCA-029, 95 N.M. 755, 626 P.2d 292, cert.
denied, 95 N.M. 669, 625 P.2d 1186, and cert. denied, 454 U.S. 853, 102 S. Ct. 298, 70
L. Ed. 2d 145 (1981), overruled on other grounds by State v. Olguin, 1994-NMCA-050,
118 N.M. 91, 879 P.2d 92, aff'd in part, 1995-NMSC-077, 120 N.M. 740, 906 P.2d 731.
Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Procedure - Civil Forfeiture and Double Jeopardy:
State v. Nunez," see 31 N.M.L. Rev. 401 (2001).
For note and comment, "Complying with Nunez: The Necessary Procedure for
Obtaining Forfeiture of Property and Avoiding Double Jeopardy after State v. Esparza,"
see 34 N.M. L. Rev. 561 (2004).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 25 Am. Jur. 2d Drugs, Narcotics and
Poisons §§ 17, 19, 33, 130, 141, 191, 206.
Prosecutions based upon alleged illegal possession of instruments to be used in
violation of narcotics laws, 92 A.L.R.3d 47.
Competency of drug addict or user to identify suspect material as narcotic or controlled
substance, 95 A.L.R.3d 978.
Liability for discharge of at-will employee for refusal to submit to drug testing, 79
A.L.R.4th 105.
Defense of necessity, duress, or coercion in prosecution for violation of state narcotics
laws, 1 A.L.R.5th 938.
Validity, construction and application of state "drug kingpin" statutes, 30 A.L.R.5th 121.
Validity, construction and application of state or local law prohibiting maintenance of
vehicle for purpose of keeping or selling controlled substances, 31 A.L.R.5th 760.
Validity, construction, and application of state statue criminalizing possession of
contraband by individual in penal or correctional institution, 45 A.L.R.5th 767.
Availability of defense of duress or coercion in prosecution for violation of federal
narcotics laws, 75 A.L.R. Fed. 722.
When may offender found guilty of multiple crimes under Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 USCS §§ 841-851) be punished for only one
offense, 80 A.L.R. Fed. 794.
Validity under federal constitution of regulations, rules, or statutes requiring random or
mass drug testing of public employees or persons whose employment is regulated by
state, local, or federal government, 86 A.L.R. Fed. 420.
Supreme Court's views on mandatory testing for drugs or alcohol, 145 A.L.R. Fed. 335.
28 C.J.S. Drugs and Narcotics § 8 et seq.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: State v. Nunez, 2 P.3d 264 (N.M. 1999).
State v. Nunez, 2 P.3d 264 (N.M. 1999). “These appeals each raise the same issue: whether civil forfeiture under the Controlled Substances Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-31-1 to -41 (1972, as amended through 1997), is punishment and is limited by the protections against double jeopardy guaranteed by the New Mexico Constitution,…”
State v. McWhorter, 124 P.3d 215 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). “ng, propagating, cultivating, growing, harvesting, manufacturing, compounding, converting, producing, processing, preparing, testing, analyzing, packaging, repackaging, storing, containing, concealing, injecting, ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing into the human body…”
State v. Riley, 226 P.3d 656 (N.M. 2010). “"); NMSA 1978, § 30-31-26(A) (1972) ("Any penalty imposed for violation of the Controlled Substances Act [§§ 30-31-1 to -28, 30-31-30 to -40 NMSA 1978] is in addition to any civil or administrative penalty or sanction otherwise provided by law.”
State v. Torres, 141 P.3d 1284 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “A person convicted of a noncapital felony in this state whether within the Criminal Code [NMSA 1978, § 30-1-1] or the Controlled Substances Act [NMSA 1978, § 30-31-1] or not who has incurred one prior felony conviction that was part of a separate transaction or occurrence or…”
State v. Carr, 626 P.2d 292 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981). “He was found by the jury to be guilty of trafficking in dilaudid, contrary to § 30-31-20, of distributing biphetamine, contrary to § 30-31-22, and of intentionally acquiring or obtaining possession of dilaudid and biphetamine by misrepresentation, fraud, deception, or…”
Oakey v. May Maple Pharmacy, Inc., 2017 NMCA 54 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “04 (a) (2017); and NMSA 1978, § 30-31-1 (2005). {13} At the motion hearing, the district court responded to Plaintiff’s observation that no New Mexico case prescribes a standard of care for pharmacists in this circumstance by stating that “there is a standard.”
City of Albuquerque Ex Rel. Albuquerque Police Dep't v. One (1) 1984 White Chevy Ut., VIN 1G8CS18BXE8176575, New Mexico License No. 335-KRH, 46 P.3d 94 (N.M. 2002). “Further, although the Claimants agree that the test in Kennedy is the proper standard for the analysis of the issue raised in this case, they assert that Nunez should control the result.”
State v. Kirby, 70 P.3d 772 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “Nunez involved vehicle forfeiture proceedings under the Controlled Substances Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-31-1 to -41 (1972, as amended through 2002), followed by a criminal prosecution under that same act.”
State v. Antillon, 2 P.3d 315 (N.M. 1999). “3d 264 , in which we concluded that civil forfeiture under the Controlled Substances Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-31-1 to -41 (1972, as amended through 1997), is punishment for the purposes of the New Mexico Double Jeopardy Clause, N.”
Ortiz v. Overland Express, 207 P.3d 1147 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “" {11} The plain language of Section 52-1-12 requires us to refer to two other statutes to determine whether methamphetamine and amphetamine fall under its provisions: the DDCA, NMSA 1978, §§ 26-1-1 to -26 (1967, as amended through 2008) and the Controlled Substances Act, NMSA…”
State v. Esparza, 70 P.3d 762 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003). “{1} Defendants Esparza, Booth, and Reed were charged with violations of the Controlled Substances Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 30-31-1 to -41 (1972, as amended through 2002).”
Dawkins v. State, 547 A.2d 1041 (Md. 1988). “Ann §§ 24:21-1 to 24:21-53 (1988) ; N.M.Stat.Ann. §§ 30-31-1 to 30-31-41 (1978); N.”
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.