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

N.M. Stat. § 30-42-1 (2026)

Short title

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

Chapter 30, Article 42 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Racketeering Act".

History: Laws 1980, ch. 40, § 1; 2025, ch. 128, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

The 2025 amendment, effective June 20, 2025, added the statutory citation for the Racketeering Act; changed "This act" to "Chapter 30, Article 42 NMSA 1978".

Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Procedure - New Mexico Denies Fifth Amendment Protection to Corporations: John Doe and Five Unnamed Corporations v. State ex rel. Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Commission," see 23 N.M.L. Rev. 315 (1993).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Validity, construction, and application of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq. - supreme court cases, 171 A.L.R. Fed. 1

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: State v. Loza, 426 P.3d 34 (N.M. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Loza, 426 P.3d 34 (N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “See generally NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (1980, as amended through 2015) (Racketeering Act).”
State v. Loza, 2018-NMSC-034. · cites it 2× “See generally NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (1980, as amended through 2015) (Racketeering Act).”
State v. Catt, 435 P.3d 1255 (N.M. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “The Racketeering Act {8} New Mexico's Racketeering Act (the Racketeering Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (1980, as amended through 2015), provides, in relevant part: C.”
State v. Rivera, 2009-NMCA-132, 223 P.3d 951. · cites it 2× “With respect to these fourteen transactions, Defendant was convicted in April 2006 of one count of racketeering, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-42-4(C) (1980) (amended 2002), which is contained in the Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (1980, as amended through…”
State v. Rael, 1999-NMCA-068, 981 P.2d 280. · cites it 2× “{6} “The purpose of the Racketeering Act [NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to 30-42-6 (1980, as amended through 1998) ] is to eliminate the infiltration and illegal acquisition of legitimate economic enterprise by racketeering practices and the use of legal and illegal enterprises to…”
State v. Armijo, 1997-NMCA-080, 944 P.2d 919. · cites it 2× “Defendant argues that because the Insurance Authority is a governmental agency, it is not an “enterprise” under the Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp.1989).”
New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 323 F. Supp. 3d 1242 (D.N.M. 2018). · cites it 2× “§§ 30-44-1 to -8 (Count III); violation of New Mexico's Racketeering Act, N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (Count IV); conspiracy to violate New Mexico's Racketeering Act (Count V); violation of New Mexico's Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, N.”
State v. Johnson, 728 P.2d 473 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “We discuss defendant’s claims of error as to: (1) failure of proof; (2) denial of mistrial; (3) unconstitutionality of the Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 30-42-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp.1980); (4) propriety of jury instruction; and (5) mistake in sentencing.”
Doe v. State ex rel. Governor's Organized Crime Prevention Comm'n, 835 P.2d 76 (N.M. 1992). · cites it 2× “Additional evidence that supports restricting immunity to “natural persons” lies in the latter enactment of the Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 30-42-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp.1989).”
Naranjo v. Paull, 803 P.2d 254 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). “Racketeering Claim The Naranjos contend that the district court erred in not granting them treble damages pursuant to the New Mexico Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 30-42-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp.1989). Although the district court rejected the Naranjos’ racketeering claim, they…”
State v. Wynne, 767 P.2d 373 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “Section 30-42-4(C) provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs by engaging in a pattern of racketeering activity.”
State v. Hughes, 767 P.2d 382 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988). “Next, defendant attacks the sufficiency of the evidence of his violation of New Mexico’s Racketeering Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 30-42-1 to -6 (Repl.Pamp. 1987 & Supp.”
Show all 25 citing cases →
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.