N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 30 / Article 9
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 30-9-15 (2026)

Corroboration.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
The testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under Sections 2
through 5 [30-9-11 to 30-9-14 NMSA 1978] of this act and such testimony shall be
entitled to the same weight as the testimony of victims of other crimes under the
Criminal Code.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-9-25, enacted by Laws 1975, ch. 109, § 6.

                                   ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — For case law requiring corroboration prior to enactment of this
section, see notes under 30-9-11 NMSA 1978.

Weight of evidence. — In prosecutions for criminal sexual penetration, the testimony of
the victim need not be corroborated and lack of corroboration has no bearing on weight
to be given to the testimony. State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, 139 N.M. 72, 128 P.3d
500; State v. Hunter, 1984-NMSC-017, 101 N.M. 5, 677 P.2d 618, cert. denied, 469
U.S. 838, 105 S. Ct. 137, 83 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1984).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 65 Am. Jur. 2d Rape §§ 94 to 99; 70A
Am. Jur. 2d Sodomy §§ 70 to 76.
Modern status of admissibility, in forcible rape prosecution, of complainant's general
reputation for unchastity, 95 A.L.R.3d 1181.

Modern status of rule regarding necessity for corroboration of victim's testimony in
prosecution for sexual offense, 31 A.L.R.4th 120.

75 C.J.S. Rape § 78.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: State v. Nichols, 2006 NMCA 17 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Nichols, 2006 NMCA 17 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 30-9-15 (1975). The appropriate formulation of the sufficiency of the evidence test in CSP cases was succinctly stated in State v.”
Fitzgerald v. United States, 443 A.2d 1295 (D.C. 1982). · cites it 2× “); N.M.Stat.Ann. § 30-9-15 (1978); V.I. Code Ann.”
State v. Hunter, 677 P.2d 618 (N.M. 1984). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, § 30-9-15. In support of his claim that the evidence was inherently incredible, Defendant points out that the testimony of his stepdaughter was in conflict with a prior affidavit wherein she had stated she had lied in bringing charges against him.”
State v. Salas (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “{4} Prior to the jury trial, the State proposed a nonuniform jury instruction (the nonuniform instruction) patterned after NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-15 (1975) (New Mexico’s corroboration statute), which read, The testimony of a sexual assault victim need not be corroborated by…”
State v. Sandoval (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 5× “{47} The record before us indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion to strike. The State’s question was reasonably directed at identifying jurors who would have difficulty rendering a guilty verdict based on a victim’s…”
State v. Sandoval (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 3× “See NMSA 1978, 31 1 § 30-9-15 (1975) (stating that “[t]he testimony of a victim need not be corroborated 2 in prosecutions” for sex crimes).”
State v. Bravo (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Defendant’s argument that the prosecutor vouched for Victim’s credibility “by arguing that lack of DNA and lack of injuries did not matter because [Victim] testified” is likewise not supported by the record.”
State v. Cox (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “¶¶ 10, 31 (affirming conviction under NMSA 1978, Section 30-9-15 (1975) without corroborating evidence).”
State v. Galicia (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “[RP 10] {6} Our Legislature has declared: “The testimony of a victim need not be corroborated in prosecutions under Sections 2 through 5 [NMSA 1978, §§ 30-9-11 through 30-9-14 (1975 amended through 2007)] of this act and such testimony shall be entitled to the same weight as the…”
State v. Gregor (N.M. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 30-9-15 (1975); State v. Nichols, 2006-NMCA-017, ¶ 10 , 139 N.”
State v. E Gonzales (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “3d 500 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see 10 NMSA 1978, § 30-9-15 (1975). The appropriate formulation of the sufficiency of the 11 evidence test in criminal sexual penetration cases has been stated as follows: 12 The jury, as the trier of fact, was entitled to…”
State v. Dominguez (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Defendant does not dispute that Child’s 12 testimony covered the charging periods in question.”
Show all 13 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.