New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 30-45-3 (2026)
Computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A person who knowingly and willfully accesses or causes to be accessed a
computer, computer system, computer network or any part thereof with the intent to
obtain, by means of embezzlement or false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or
promises, money, property or anything of value, when the:
A. money, property or other thing has a value of two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or
less, is guilty of a petty misdemeanor;
B. money, property or other thing has a value of more than two hundred fifty dollars
($250) but not more than five hundred dollars ($500), is guilty of a misdemeanor;
C. money, property or other thing has a value of more than five hundred dollars
($500) but not more than two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), is guilty of a fourth
degree felony;
D. money, property or other thing has a value of more than two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500) but not more than twenty thousand dollars ($20,000), is guilty
of a third degree felony; or
E. money, property or other thing has a value of more than twenty thousand dollars
($20,000), is guilty of a second degree felony.
History: Laws 1989, ch. 215, § 3; 2006, ch. 29, § 22.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2006 amendment, effective July 1, 2006, increased the value in Subsection A from
$100 to $250; increased the value in Subsection B from more than $100, but not more
than $250, and to more than $250, but not more than $500; increased the value in
Subsection C from more than $250 to more than $500; and deleted the reference to
sentencing pursuant to Section 31-18-15 NMSA 1978 in Subsections B through E.
"Accessing" construed. — The use of a telephone network consisting in part of
computerized switches to make a long-distance call does not constitute the "accessing"
of a "computer" within the meaning of this article. State v. Rowell, 1995-NMSC-079, 121
N.M. 111, 908 P.2d 1379.
Using a computer as a passive conduit not covered by statute. — The Computer
Crimes Act, 30-45-1 NMSA 1978 et seq., was intended by the legislature to deter and
punish crimes committed through the abuse of computer sophistication and to protect
against the introduction of fraudulent data into a computer system, the unauthorized use
of computer facilities, the alteration or destruction of computerized information or files,
and the stealing of financial information data or other assets, but was not intended to
apply to the use of a computer as a passive conduit through which the defendant’s
criminal activity passed. State v. Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, rev’d on other grounds,
2016-NMSC-034.
Insufficient evidence of computer access with intent to defraud. — Where
defendant, with the victim’s permission, used a computer to access victim’s bank
accounts and transfer funds to defendant’s own bank accounts for personal use, the
evidence was insufficient to convict defendant of computer access with intent to defraud
because defendant did not introduce fraudulent data into a computer system, use
computer facilities without authorization, alter or destroy computerized information or
files, nor did she steal financial information, data or other assets, but merely used the
computer as a passive conduit to access accounts and transfer funds, just as any
banking customer would. State v. Garcia, 2015-NMCA-094, rev’d on other grounds,
2016-NMSC-034.
Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Law: Applying the General/Specific Statute Rule in
New Mexico - State v. Santillanes," see 32 N.M. L. Rev. 313 (2002).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Computer fraud, 70 A.L.R.5th 647.Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: State v. Garcia, 2016 NMSC 034 (N.M. 2016).
State v. Garcia, 2016 NMSC 034 (N.M. 2016). “A jury convicted Garcia of Fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-6 (2006), and Computer Access with Intent to Defraud, in violation ofNMSA 1978, Section 30-45-3 (2006). The Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the convictions.”
State v. Rowell, 895 P.2d 232 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). “A Curry County grand jury indicted Defendant, as the caller identified as Odem, on one count of computer access with intent to commit fraud over $250, a fourth degree felony in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-45-3 (Repl.Pamp.1989), and one count of attempt to commit fraud…”
State v. Boergadine, 107 P.3d 532 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). “Addressing three acts resulting in a single conviction under the computer fraud statute, NMSA 1978, § 30-45-3 (1989), Rowell refused to apply the single larceny doctrine where the “single larcenous scheme involves multiple victims, locations, and time periods.”
State v. Rowell, 908 P.2d 1379 (N.M. 1995). “Building on this premise, the State argued that Rowell violated Section 30-45-3 when he used the telephone to commit larceny.”
State v. Padilla, 534 P.3d 223 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “{1} Following a jury trial, Defendant Demesia Padilla was convicted of two second degree felonies, embezzlement (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16- 8 (2007), and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section…”
State v. Garcia, 2015 NMCA 094 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “{1} A jury found Defendant Patricia Garcia guilty of two second degree felonies, fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-16-6(A), (F) (2006), and computer access with intent to defraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-45-3(E) (2006). On appeal, Defendant argues, among other…”
State v. Garcia, 2016 NMSC 34 (N.M. 2016). “A jury convicted Garcia of Fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-6 (2006), and Computer Access with Intent to Defraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-45-3 (2006). The Court of Appeals reversed, finding insufficient evidence to support the convictions.”
State v. Garcia (N.M. Ct. App. 2017). “Defendant, a fifty-two-year old teacher, was originally 6 convicted of fraud in violation of NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-6 (2006) (Fraud), and 7 computer access with the intent to defraud or embezzle in violation of NMSA 1978, 8 Section 30-45-3 (2006) (Computer Fraud). Defendant…”
State v. Garcia, 2015 NMCA 94 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “{1} A jury found Defendant Patricia Garcia guilty of two second degree felonies, fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-16-6(A), (F) (2006), and computer access with intent to defraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-45-3(E) (2006). On appeal, Defendant argues, among other…”
State v. Padilla (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “3 {1} Following a jury trial, Defendant Demesia Padilla was convicted of two 4 second degree felonies, embezzlement (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, 5 Section 30-16-8 (2007), and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle 6 (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978,…”
State v. Padilla (N.M. 2025). “See NMSA 8 1978, § 30-16-8 (2007); NMSA 1978, § 30-45-3 (2006). Almost a year later and 9 after the statute of limitations had expired, both charges were dismissed without 10 prejudice for improper venue.”
State v. Archer (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “{1} Defendant Irene Archer was convicted of fraud (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-6(F) (2006) (Count 2); computer access with the intent to defraud or embezzle (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-45-3(E) (2006) (Count 3); and of computer abuse…”
— N.M. Stat. § 30-45-3(E) — 6 cases
State v. Garcia, 2015 NMCA 094 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “{1} A jury found Defendant Patricia Garcia guilty of two second degree felonies, fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-16-6(A), (F) (2006), and computer access with intent to defraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-45-3(E) (2006). On appeal, Defendant argues, among other…”
State v. Padilla, 534 P.3d 223 (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “{1} Following a jury trial, Defendant Demesia Padilla was convicted of two second degree felonies, embezzlement (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16- 8 (2007), and computer access with intent to defraud or embezzle (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section…”
State v. Garcia, 2015 NMCA 94 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “{1} A jury found Defendant Patricia Garcia guilty of two second degree felonies, fraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-16-6(A), (F) (2006), and computer access with intent to defraud, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 30-45-3(E) (2006). On appeal, Defendant argues, among other…”
State v. Archer (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). “{1} Defendant Irene Archer was convicted of fraud (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-16-6(F) (2006) (Count 2); computer access with the intent to defraud or embezzle (over $20,000), contrary to NMSA 1978, Section 30-45-3(E) (2006) (Count 3); and of computer abuse…”
State v. Garcia (N.M. Ct. App. 2015).
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.