N.M. Stat. § 30-6-3 (2026)

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor consists of any person committing any act
or omitting the performance of any duty, which act or omission causes or tends to cause
or encourage the delinquency of any person under the age of eighteen years.

   Whoever commits contributing to the delinquency of a minor is guilty of a fourth
degree felony.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-6-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 6-3; 1990, ch. 19, §
1.
                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 1990 amendment, effective July 1, 1990, substituted "the delinquency of a minor"
for "delinquency of minor" in two places.

Statute does not violate freedom of expression. — The contributing to the
delinquency of a minor statute does not violate the first amendment or Article II, Section
17 of the New Mexico Constitution. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256,
cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad. — The contributing to the delinquency of
a minor statute is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the first amendment. State v.
Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Statute is not unconstitutionally vague. — The contributing to the delinquency of a
minor statute is not unconstitutionally vague in violation of due process. State v. Garcia,
2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Defendant’s constitutional rights were not violated. — Where defendant was
convicted of contributing to the delinquency of a minor when defendant wrote a sexually
explicit letter to the victim, defendant’s conviction did not violate defendant’s first
amendment or New Mexico constitution freedom of expression rights because the
conviction was premised on the effect of encouraging or tending to cause or encourage
the victim’s delinquency, not on the content of the letter, and Section 30-6-3 NMSA
1978 is content neutral, furthers an important and substantial governmental interest
unrelated to suppression of free speech, is limited to circumstances that do not
substantially burden more speech that necessary to further the interest of protecting
children from delinquency, is not unconstitutionally overbroad under the first
amendment, and is not void for vagueness in violation of defendant’s due process
rights. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-
012.

General/specific rule did not apply. — Where defendant, who was convicted of
contributing to the delinquency of a minor when defendant wrote a sexually explicit letter
to the victim, claimed that under the general/specific rule, the state was required to
charge defendant under the sexually oriented materials statute, Section 30-37-2 NMSA
1978, rather than under Section 30-6-3 NMSA 1978; the general/specific rule states that
if one statute deals with a subject in general and comprehensive terms and another
statute addresses part of the same subject matter in a more specific manner, the latter
controls; the contributing to the delinquency of a minor statute requires that the material
encourage delinquency; and the sexually oriented materials statute only requires the
knowing delivery of harmful materials to a minor, the general/specific rule did not apply
because the statutory elements of the statutes were not the same and defendant’s
conviction did not violate the general/specific rule. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005,
294 P.3d 1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.
Double jeopardy. — Where defendant served varieties of alcohol over a considerable
period of time at his own home to invited minors, and personally interacted with the
minors, intending and encouraging different minors to drink to intoxication he could be
found guilty of multiple counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v.
Stone, 2008-NMCA-062, 144 N.M. 78, 183 P.3d 963, cert. denied, 2008-NMCERT-003,
143 N.M. 682, 180 P.3d 1181.

Jurisdiction. — Insofar as the juvenile law formerly purported to confer "exclusive
original jurisdiction" on juvenile courts over persons contributing to the delinquency of
juveniles it was invalid since the constitution vests sole and exclusive jurisdiction for the
trial of all felony cases in the district courts. State v. McKinley, 1949-NMSC-010, 53
N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964.

Contributing minor triable in district court. — A minor, properly transferred from
children's court to district court, may be tried and convicted of contributing to the
delinquency of a minor under this section. State v. Pitts, 1986-NMSC-011, 103 N.M.
778, 714 P.2d 582.

Infants have generally been favored class for special protection in New Mexico;
therefore, the legislature intended to make the commission of the act of contributing to
the delinquency of a minor a crime without regard to intent. State v. Gunter, 1974-
NMCA-132, 87 N.M. 71, 529 P.2d 297, cert. denied, 87 N.M. 48, 529 P.2d 274, and
cert. denied, 421 U.S. 951, 95 S. Ct. 1686, 44 L. Ed. 2d 106 (1975).

Acts of commission or omission. — Any act of commission or omission causing or
tending to cause juvenile delinquency as specifically defined came within the act. State
v. McKinley, 1949-NMSC-010, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964.

Evidence that act causes delinquency. — In order to prove the offense of contributing
to the delinquency of a minor, the state does not need to prove that the defendant's acts
had any particular effect on the victim; it is enough that his acts encourage the child to
engage in delinquent behavior. State v. Lucero, 1994-NMCA-129, 118 N.M. 696, 884
P.2d 1175, cert. denied, 118 N.M. 731, 885 P.2d 1325.

Defendant need not actually cause delinquency. — The jury can convict if the
defendant's act actually caused or encouraged the particular minor to commit a
delinquent act or if the act only tends to cause or encourage delinquency generally. The
"tends to cause or encourage" language refers to an objective view of the defendant's
conduct. There is no requirement that the defendant actually cause delinquency. State
v. Trevino, 1993-NMSC-067, 116 N.M. 528, 865 P.2d 1172.

Tending to cause, encourage delinquency. — Defendant's acts or omissions must
have caused or tended to cause or encourage the delinquency of the juvenile. State v.
Grove, 1971-NMCA-086, 82 N.M. 679, 486 P.2d 615.
Sufficient evidence of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. — Where
defendant was charged with criminal sexual penetration of a minor and contributing to
the delinquency of a minor, and where the state relied on testimony elicited from the
victim that defendant pinned her to the floor, with her arms above her head and her legs
under his, while defendant's son sat on the victim's chest and sexually assaulted her by
putting his penis in her mouth, and that defendant's son was approximately fourteen
years old, there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
defendant caused or encouraged his son to engage in fellatio with the victim, and that
doing so caused or encouraged the delinquency of defendant's son. State v. Garcia,
2019-NMCA-056, cert. denied.

Tending to cause violation of law, or immorality. — Defendant's acts must have
tended to cause or encourage the prosecuting witness to violate the law of the state or
to conduct himself in a manner injurious to his morals. State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030,
80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Causing disobedience of lawful command. — In order to convict defendant of
contributing to the delinquency of a minor for causing or encouraging the minor to
refuse to obey the reasonable and lawful command or direction of the minor's parent,
the state must prove that defendant knew or by the exercise of reasonable care should
have known of such command or direction. State v. Romero, 2000-NMCA-029, 128
N.M. 806, 999 P.2d 1038.

Habituality of juveniles' conduct not prerequisite to conviction of defendant. —
Defendant's contention that for his acts to be criminal hereunder they must tend to
encourage "habitual" conduct on the part of the minor was unfounded, as the end result
of defendant's acts, that is, whether they result in habitual conduct on the part of the
juvenile, is not a prerequisite to the charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M.
198, 453 P.2d 219.

Multiple victims. — Where defendant perpetrated distinct and separate acts with
respect to each of seven juveniles, submission of separate elements instructions to the
jury relating to each of the juveniles did not violate defendant's right against double
jeopardy and his conviction on seven separate counts of contributing to the delinquency
of a minor was justified along with his sentence to seven sentences. State v. Barr, 1999-
NMCA-081, 127 N.M. 504, 984 P.2d 185.

Criminal sexual contact of minor is separate offense. — The legislature intended for
the crimes of criminal sexual contact of a minor and contributing to the delinquency of a
minor to be separate crimes, punishable separately even when unitary conduct violates
both statutes. Therefore, convictions under both statutes do not violate double jeopardy
principles. State v. Trevino, 1993-NMSC-067, 116 N.M. 528, 865 P.2d 1172.

Indecent exposure is separate offense. — An element of indecent exposure is that
the defendant's acts take place in "public view"; there is no such element in contributing
to delinquency of a minor, and the trial court's refusal to give the instruction as a lesser
included offense was proper. State v. Henderson, 1993-NMSC-068, 116 N.M. 537, 865
P.2d 1181, overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Meadors, 1995-NMSC-073, 121
N.M. 38, 908 P.2d 731; State v. Hernandez, 1999-NMCA-105, 127 N.M. 769, 987 P.2d
1156.

Criminal sexual penetration is separate offense. — Criminal sexual penetration of a
minor requires proof of sexual penetration and contributing to delinquency of a minor
requires proof that the defendant's act or omission contributed to the delinquency of a
minor, and neither of those facts is required to prove the other. The legislature intended
separate punishments for criminal sexual penetration of a minor and contributing to
delinquency of a minor when the same conduct violates both statutes. State v. Walker,
1993-NMSC-069, 116 N.M. 546, 865 P.2d 1190.

Sexually explicit letter. — Where defendant, who was the biological parent of the
victim, lived with the victim, the victim’s mother, and the victim’s sibling; on the day the
offense occurred, defendant was alone in the house; the victim subsequently found a
five page handwritten letter in the victim’s underwear drawer that contained a story
entitled "I Just a Fantasy Story"; the letter describing various sexual acts between the
writer and the reader; the victim recognized the handwriting in the letter as defendant’s
handwriting; a handwriting analyst testified that the handwriting was defendant’s
handwriting; the content of the letter provided clues that defendant was the author; and
the police found an envelope in the victim’s parents’ bedroom with the writing "I Just a
fantasy" on it, the evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction of
contributing to the delinquency of a minor. State v. Garcia, 2013-NMCA-005, 294 P.3d
1256, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-012.

Sufficiency of information. — Information charging defendant with contributing to
delinquency of minor did not fail to charge an offense even though it did not name the
victim or allege particular acts. State v. Roessler, 1954-NMSC-017, 58 N.M. 102, 266
P.2d 351.

Evidence sufficient. — Where defendant, who was the spiritual leader of a religious
group that lived together, was convicted of two counts of contributing to the delinquency
of a minor based on an unclothed experience with two teenage children who were
members of defendant's religious community; defendant claimed that the experiences
were purely spiritual healing experiences; the teenage children each visited defendant
alone and lay in bed naked with defendant; one child testified that defendant kissed the
child on the breast; and the other child testified that while the child was unclothed and in
bed next to the unclothed defendant, defendant put defendant's chest below the child's
breast, defendant embraced the child by putting defendant's arm on the child’s back as
they lay on their sides, and defendant laid defendant's head and hand on the child's
heart, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's convictions of contributing to
the delinquency of a minor. State v. Bent, 2013-NMCA-108, cert. denied, 2013-
NMCERT-012.
Where defendant took the child to a tattoo parlor and signed a written consent to allow
the child to have the child’s tongue pierced without the knowledge, authorization or
permission of the child’s parent, there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s
conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a minor because defendant’s actions
caused or encouraged the child to deceive the child’s parent by obtaining the piercing
without permission. State v. Webb, 2013-NMCA-027, 296 P.3d 1247, cert. denied,
2013-NMCERT-002.

Evidence that a 17 year old boy bought two cans of beer at defendant's place and drank
one of them, that the girl from whom he purchased the beer took the money into the
bedroom where defendant was in bed and handed it to her or placed it on the bed
beside her, and that officer found four boys in defendant's living room with empty and
open cans of beer in front of them, was sufficient to warrant a conviction hereunder.
State v. Ferguson, 1967-NMSC-032, 77 N.M. 441, 423 P.2d 872.

Evidence was sufficient for conviction where it showed that defendant accompanied the
victim and two other minors to a store to buy alcohol, that when they arrived at the
store, defendant purchased alcohol, and that, once the group arrived back at the house
where a party was underway, the victim carried the alcohol into the house and drank
some of it. State v. Perea, 2001-NMCA-002, 130 N.M. 46, 16 P.3d 1105, aff'd in part
and vacated in part on other grounds, State v. Perea, 2001-NMSC-026, 130 N.M. 732,
31 P.3d 1006.

Defendant's acts in indecently touching the private parts of a minor and talking
indecently to him tended to cause or encourage his victim to violate former 40A-9-8,
1953 Comp., prohibiting indecent exposure, and also tended to cause or encourage him
to conduct himself in a manner injurious to his morals. State v. Leyba, 1969-NMCA-030,
80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Evidence that defendant showed a men's magazine to a minor and told him to unbutton
his pants was sufficient for the jury to find defendant guilty of contributing to the
delinquency of a minor, even without evidence that defendant engaged in fellatio or had
criminal sexual contact with the minor. State v. Corbin, 1991-NMCA-021, 111 N.M. 707,
809 P.2d 57, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 720, 809 P.2d 634.

Sufficient evidence of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. — Where
defendant was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM), evidence
that defendant had driven to Wal-Mart with the minor child and the two had discussed
the child shoplifting with him, that defendant looked out to see if anyone was coming
while the child shoplifted, and where a Wal-Mart asset protection associate testified that
defendant and the child appeared to be working together and that she believed that
defendant was assisting the child in picking out merchandise to steal, was sufficient to
support defendant’s conviction for CDM. State v. Lozoya, 2017-NMCA-052, cert.
denied.
Sufficient evidence to support conviction of contributing to the delinquency of a
minor. — Where defendant was convicted of human trafficking, promoting prostitution,
accepting earnings from a prostitute, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and
conspiracy, defendant’s conviction for contributing to the delinquency of a minor was
supported by substantial evidence where the evidence presented at trial established
that defendant instructed his co-conspirator to create an advertisement for the victim, a
seventeen-year old girl, on a website commonly used to advertise prostitution services,
explained to the victim that she would use the ad in order to exchange sex for money,
and informed the victim when and where to meet people who responded to the ad.
State v. Jackson, 2018-NMCA-066, cert. denied.

Sufficient evidence of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. — Where
defendant was charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and where, at
trial, the state presented testimony from the fifteen-year-old victim that defendant and
his friend handed her a bottle of fruit-flavored alcohol when they first met up with her at
the school near her house, and after a drive to a local park, defendant continued to
drink and to pass the bottle to the victim who continued to drink when the bottle was
passed to her until she could not walk on her own and was in and out of consciousness
and that defendant blew marijuana smoke directly into the victim's mouth when the
victim stated that she did not know how to use the marijuana pipe, the evidence was
sufficient to support the jury's verdict beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant helped
the victim use drugs and both participated in handing the alcohol to the victim and
encouraged her to continue drinking until she was so drunk she was in and out of
consciousness at the time of the sexual intercourse. There was no error in the jury's
finding that defendant's actions helped the victim drink alcohol and use drugs, and that
his actions caused or encouraged the victim to conduct herself in a manner injurious to
her morals, health, or welfare, including submitting to sexual intercourse. State v. Elliot,
2025-NMCA-022, cert. denied.

Contributing to the delinquency of a minor does not require proof that the
offender knew the age of the child. — Where defendant was charged with
contributing to the delinquency of a minor (CDM) for assisting a minor child in stealing
bottles of alcohol from Wal-Mart, defendant’s argument that failure to provide a
knowledge-of-age element to the jury instruction constituted error was without merit,
because CDM does not require proof that the offending adult know the age of the child
to whose delinquency the adult contributed. State v. Lozoya, 2017-NMCA-052, cert.
denied.

Evidence insufficient. — If from the evidence, it could be inferred that defendant was
present when juvenile engaged in his admitted activities with marijuana, nevertheless
there was no evidence that defendant had anything to do with these activities nor any
evidence that defendant approved of them. In the absence of such evidence an
inference that defendant was present when juvenile engaged in his marijuana activities
was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for contributing to the delinquency of
the juvenile. State v. Grove, 1971-NMCA-086, 82 N.M. 679, 486 P.2d 615.
Jury instruction proper. — Where time limitation was not an essential element of the
offense of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and criminal sexual contact of a
minor, no error was committed by the court's failure to instruct the jury on time
limitations in connection with the charges at issue. State v. Cawley, 1990-NMSC-088,
110 N.M. 705, 799 P.2d 574.

Trial court was not without jurisdiction to impose sentence against defendant
following his conviction some seven years earlier of contributing to delinquency of a
minor child, at which time the court had deferred sentence until the "further order of the
court." State v. Sorrows, 1957-NMSC-091, 63 N.M. 277, 317 P.2d 324.

Sentencing discretion not abused. — Where defendant pled guilty to contributing to
delinquency of a minor, two counts of attempted rape being thereafter dismissed, it
could not be said as a matter of law that the trial court abused its discretion by not
adopting report of psychiatrist recommending probation or in not requesting diagnosis
and recommendation from the department of corrections (now the criminal justice
department) pursuant to Section 31-20-3 NMSA 1978. State v. Hogan, 1972-NMCA-
037, 83 N.M. 608, 495 P.2d 388.

Availability of psychiatric help in penitentiary. — Where defendant convicted of
contributing to delinquency of a minor asked court of appeals to take judicial notice that
no psychiatric or psychological help was available for him at the penitentiary, but cited
neither source nor reference for such a proposition and court found none in its search,
assertion was not a matter for judicial notice. State v. Hogan, 1972-NMCA-037, 83 N.M.
608, 495 P.2d 388.

Conviction allowed to stand. — Since appellate court could only speculate as to why
the jury acquitted defendant of assault, that acquittal, even though irreconcilable with
conviction for contributing to delinquency of a minor by indecently touching his private
parts, did not require the conviction to be set aside as a matter of law. State v. Leyba,
1969-NMCA-030, 80 N.M. 190, 453 P.2d 211, cert. denied, 80 N.M. 198, 453 P.2d 219.

Law reviews. — For symposium, "The Impact of the Equal Rights Amendment on the
New Mexico Criminal Code," see 3 N.M.L. Rev. 106 (1973).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Juvenile Courts and
Delinquent and Dependent Children § 128 et seq.

Acts in connection with marriage of infant below marriageable age as contributing to
delinquency, 68 A.L.R.2d 745.

Applicability of statute against contributing to the delinquency of children of a specified
age, with respect to a child who has passed the anniversary date of such age, 73
A.L.R.2d 874.
Criminal liability for contributing to delinquency of minor by sexually immoral acts as
affected by fact that minor was married at time of acts charged, 84 A.L.R.2d 1254.

Criminal liability for contributing to delinquency of minor as affected by the fact that
minor has not become a delinquent, 18 A.L.R.3d 824.

Mens rea or guilty intent as necessary element of offense of contributing to delinquency
or dependency of minor, 31 A.L.R.3d 848.

Drugs: giving, selling or prescribing, dangerous drugs as contributing to the delinquency
of a minor, 36 A.L.R.3d 1292.

43 C.J.S. Infants § 95.