N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 30 / Article 3A
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-2 (2026)

Harassment; penalties.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended
to annoy, seriously alarm or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose.
The conduct must be such that it would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial
emotional distress.

   B. Whoever commits harassment is guilty of a misdemeanor.

History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-2, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 2.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 7, repealed 30-3A-2 NMSA 1978,
as enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 86, § 2, and Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 2, enacted a new
section, effective July 1, 1997.

Constitutionality. — This section, as applied to defendant who repeatedly trespassed
on victim's property, looked in her windows, and followed her both on and off her
property, was not unconstitutionally vague; a person of ordinary intelligence would have
known that such behavior was unlawful and would inflict substantial emotional distress
upon the victim. State v. Duran, 1998-NMCA-153, 126 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768, cert.
denied, 126 N.M. 533, 972 P.2d 352, overruled on other grounds, State v. Laguna,
1999-NMCA-152, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d
823.

Double jeopardy. — When the defendant had been convicted of contempt, a
misdemeanor, for violating a domestic violence protective order and sentenced to jail
time, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of the defendant for the offenses of
stalking and harassment stemming from the same conduct that gave rise to the
contempt adjudication. State v. Gonzales, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d
185, cert. denied, 123 N.M. 229, 938 P.2d 204.
Where the state relies on identical acts of an accused involving the same course of
conduct to prove both the offenses of harassment and of stalking, double jeopardy
provisions preclude multiple punishment, and the offense of harassment is subsumed
into the offense of misdemeanor stalking. State v. Duran, 1998-NMCA-153, 126 N.M.
60, 966 P.2d 768, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 533, 972 P.2d 352, overruled on other
grounds, State v. Laguna, 1999-NMCA-152, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896, cert. denied,
128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Construction and application of § 2A6.1
of United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG § 2A6.1), pertaining to sentence to be
imposed for making threatening communications, 148 A.L.R. Fed. 501.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “We address the following issues on appeal: (1) whether Defendant’s convictions for stalking and harassment violate constitutional double jeopardy protections, (2) whether the New Mexico criminal harassment statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2 (1993), is unconstitutionally vague, (3)…”
State v. Gonzales, 940 P.2d 185 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “See NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3A-2 (Repl. Pamp. 1994), 30-3A-3 (Cum.”
Best v. Marino, 2017 NMCA 73 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2(A) (1997). 11 NOTICE OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTING A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION {44} Respondent next argues that the district court’s finding of contempt resulted from a due process violation because the Order of Protection did not provide sufficient…”
Mata v. Anderson, 685 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D.N.M. 2010). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2. The Amended Criminal Complaint alleges that J.”
State Ex Rel. Schwartz v. Sanchez, 936 P.2d 334 (N.M. 1997). · cites it 2× “2 Morgan Bates was charged with one count of harassment under NMSA 1978, Section 30-3A-2 (Repl.Pamp.1994). The case was tried on-record in the Bernalillo County Metropolitan Court, although, according to the State, at the time complaints charging harassment were not being tried…”
State v. Wilson, 2006 NMSC 037 (N.M. 2006). “In many cases, including this one, proof that the victim was a “household member” is not an element of the crime charged.”
State v. Warsop, 954 P.2d 748 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2 (1997) (imposing criminal liability for pursuing a pattern of conduct that is intended to annoy, seriously alarm, or terrorize another person); NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3 (1997) (imposing criminal liability for pursuing a pattern of conduct that would cause a…”
Holmes v. Grant Cnty. Sheriff Dep't, 347 F. Supp. 3d 815 (D.N.M. 2018). “§ 30-3A-2 (harassment). These criminal statutes, therefore, cannot properly serve as the basis for any civil lawsuit, whether a licensed attorney or a pro se plaintiff filed this case.”
Bermudez Moreno v. U.S. Dep't of Com. (D.N.M. 2024). · cites it 4× “Defendant repeatedly violated New Mexico Harassment Statu[t]e § 30-3A-2 which provides that “A. Harassment consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that intended to annoy, seriously alarm, or terrorize another person and that serves no lawful purpose.”
Garcia v. Patterson (D.N.M. 2024). · cites it 3× “NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3A-2 to -3 ' Defendants also argue that Mr.”
State v. Long (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “This Court issued a 1 calendar notice proposing to adopt the district court’s memorandum and, to the extent 2 Defendant raised new issues in this Court, specifically that the language of NMSA 3 1978, Section 30-3A-2 (1997) is unconstitutionally vague, proposed to affirm due to 4…”
Kaufman v. Blazin Wings, Inc. (D.N.M. 2021). · cites it 2× “2d at 265 (“part of the purpose of the 1981 Liquor Control Act was to tighten this state’s liquor control laws” and “[t]he policy set forth in Section 30-3A-2(B) imposes liability on liquor licensees and makes no exception for those who are ‘merely’ lessors.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-2(A): 5 cases
Best v. Marino, 2017 NMCA 73 (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “” NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2(A) (1997). 11 NOTICE OF CONDUCT CONSTITUTING A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF PROTECTION {44} Respondent next argues that the district court’s finding of contempt resulted from a due process violation because the Order of Protection did not provide sufficient…”
State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “We address the following issues on appeal: (1) whether Defendant’s convictions for stalking and harassment violate constitutional double jeopardy protections, (2) whether the New Mexico criminal harassment statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-2 (1993), is unconstitutionally vague, (3)…”
State v. Gonzales, 940 P.2d 185 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). “See NMSA 1978, §§ 30-3A-2 (Repl. Pamp. 1994), 30-3A-3 (Cum.”
Mathieu v. Cruz (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).
Ogle v. Barncastle (N.M. Ct. App. 2014).
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-2(B): 2 cases
Kaufman v. Blazin Wings, Inc. (D.N.M. 2021). “2d at 265 (“part of the purpose of the 1981 Liquor Control Act was to tighten this state’s liquor control laws” and “[t]he policy set forth in Section 30-3A-2(B) imposes liability on liquor licensees and makes no exception for those who are ‘merely’ lessors.”
State v. Valerio (N.M. Ct. App. 2025).
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.