New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3 (2026)

Stalking; penalties.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
A. Stalking consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct, without lawful
authority, directed at a specific individual when the person intends that the pattern of
conduct would place the individual in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm,
sexual assault, confinement or restraint of the individual or another individual.

   B. As used in this section:

       (1)     "lawful authority" means within the scope of lawful employment or
constitutionally protected activity; and

       (2)    "pattern of conduct" means two or more acts, on more than one occasion,
in which the alleged stalker by any action, method, device or means, directly, indirectly
or through third parties, follows, monitors, surveils, threatens or communicates to or
about a person.

   C. Whoever commits stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon a second or
subsequent conviction, the offender is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

    D. In addition to any punishment provided pursuant to the provisions of this section,
the court shall order a person convicted of stalking to participate in and complete a
program of professional counseling at the person's own expense or a domestic violence
offender treatment or intervention program.

History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-3, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 3; 2009, ch. 21, § 2.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 7, repealed 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978,
as amended by Laws 1995, ch. 23, § 1, and Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 3, enacted a new
section, effective July 1, 1997.
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, deleted former Subsections A and B and
inserted new Subsections A and B; and in Subsection D, added the domestic violence
offender treatment or intervention program.

Evidence sufficient. — Evidence that defendant repeatedly trespassed onto victim's
property and that defendant was the party who looked into victim's windows and
followed her was sufficient to support convictions for stalking, harassment and criminal
trespass. 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.

Sufficient evidence of stalking. — Where defendant was convicted of one count of
use of telephone to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend and one count
of stalking for sending a series of threatening text messages to his ex-girlfriend over a
two-day period, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction where the state
presented evidence that defendant authored numerous threatening text messages, and
considering the contents of the text messages and the context in which they were
received, the specific details that correlated to defendant's encounters with the victim,
and victim's additional testimony regarding defendant's style of messaging, there was
sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant was the author of
the messages. State v. Valerio, 2026-NMCA-010, cert. granted.

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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: State v. SMILE, 212 P.3d 413 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. SMILE, 212 P.3d 413 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 10× “§ 30-3A-3. Where, as here, the violation of the restraining order is done in a threatening manner, is intended to place the victim in fear, and is a part of an established pattern of stalking behavior, then aggravated stalking charges may be proper.”
State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 8× “DISCUSSION Claim of Double Jeopardy {11} Defendant argues that the jury verdicts convicting him of both harassment under Section 30-3A-2 and stalking under NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3 (1993), and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for both offenses improperly…”
State v. Stein, 981 P.2d 295 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 10× “" NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(A) (1997). The definition of "household member" is relevant to the Criminal Procedure Act only because the Act authorizes the warrantless arrest of one who "has committed an assault or a battery upon a household member.”
State v. Anderson, 24 P.3d 327 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “NMSA1978, § 30-3A-3 (1997). Aggravated Stalking {10} Aggravated stalking is stalking when “in possession of a deadly weapon.”
State v. Gutierrez, 263 P.3d 282 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “” NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(A) (1997) (amended 2009).”
Mata v. Anderson, 685 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (D.N.M. 2010). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3. The Amended Criminal Complaint alleges that J.”
State v. Warsop, 954 P.2d 748 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “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…”
State v. Gonzales, 940 P.2d 185 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “” Section 30-3A-3(A). Additionally, there must be proof that the stalker committed, on more than one occasion, one of the following acts: followed a person, placed a person under surveillance, or harassed a person.”
State v. Prince, 517 S.E.2d 229 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). “); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-3A-3(A) & -3.1(A) (Michie 1997) (Stalking is "knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel frightened, intimidated or threatened,” and aggravated stalking is stalking in violation of a protective order, with a deadly…”
State v. Ackerman (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “{1} Defendant James Ackerman was convicted, following a jury trial of three offenses: (1) one count of residential burglary, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16- 3(A) (1971); (2) one count of stalking, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-3A-3 (2009); and (3) one count of…”
State v. Valerio (N.M. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “3 {1} Following a jury trial in metropolitan court, Defendant Damian Valerio was 4 convicted of one count of use of telephone to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, 5 annoy or offend, contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-20-12 (1967), and one count 6 of stalking, contrary to…”
Miles v. Jaramillo (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “” NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3 (2009). It is the latter portion of this definition, entailing apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint, that appears to have been unsatisfied in this case.”
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3(A): 9 cases
State v. Gutierrez, 263 P.3d 282 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “” NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(A) (1997) (amended 2009).”
State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “DISCUSSION Claim of Double Jeopardy {11} Defendant argues that the jury verdicts convicting him of both harassment under Section 30-3A-2 and stalking under NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3 (1993), and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for both offenses improperly…”
State v. Stein, 981 P.2d 295 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). “" NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(A) (1997). The definition of "household member" is relevant to the Criminal Procedure Act only because the Act authorizes the warrantless arrest of one who "has committed an assault or a battery upon a household member.”
State v. Gonzales, 940 P.2d 185 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). “” Section 30-3A-3(A). Additionally, there must be proof that the stalker committed, on more than one occasion, one of the following acts: followed a person, placed a person under surveillance, or harassed a person.”
State v. Prince, 517 S.E.2d 229 (S.C. Ct. App. 1999). “); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-3A-3(A) & -3.1(A) (Michie 1997) (Stalking is "knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct that would cause a reasonable person to feel frightened, intimidated or threatened,” and aggravated stalking is stalking in violation of a protective order, with a deadly…”
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3(A)(1): 1 case
State v. SMILE, 212 P.3d 413 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 30-3A-3. Where, as here, the violation of the restraining order is done in a threatening manner, is intended to place the victim in fear, and is a part of an established pattern of stalking behavior, then aggravated stalking charges may be proper.”
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3(A)(3): 1 case
State v. Duran, 966 P.2d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “DISCUSSION Claim of Double Jeopardy {11} Defendant argues that the jury verdicts convicting him of both harassment under Section 30-3A-2 and stalking under NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3 (1993), and the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentences for both offenses improperly…”
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3(A)(l): 1 case
State v. SMILE, 212 P.3d 413 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 30-3A-3. Where, as here, the violation of the restraining order is done in a threatening manner, is intended to place the victim in fear, and is a part of an established pattern of stalking behavior, then aggravated stalking charges may be proper.”
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3(B): 2 cases
State v. Stein, 981 P.2d 295 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). “" NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(A) (1997). The definition of "household member" is relevant to the Criminal Procedure Act only because the Act authorizes the warrantless arrest of one who "has committed an assault or a battery upon a household member.”
State v. Warsop, 954 P.2d 748 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997). “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…”
N.M. Stat. § 30-3A-3(C): 2 cases
State v. Stein, 981 P.2d 295 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). “" NMSA 1978, § 30-3A-3(A) (1997). The definition of "household member" is relevant to the Criminal Procedure Act only because the Act authorizes the warrantless arrest of one who "has committed an assault or a battery upon a household member.”
State v. SMILE, 212 P.3d 413 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 30-3A-3. Where, as here, the violation of the restraining order is done in a threatening manner, is intended to place the victim in fear, and is a part of an established pattern of stalking behavior, then aggravated stalking charges may be proper.”
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.