N.M. Stat. § 31-6-15 (2026)

[harassment] and unreasonable inconvenience.
    A. If a witness is granted immunity in return for evidence, none of his testimony or
any evidence obtained as a fruit of his testimony shall be used against him in any
criminal prosecution except that such person may be prosecuted for any perjury
committed in such testimony or in producing such evidence, or for contempt for failing to
give an answer or produce evidence.

    B. Witnesses shall not be harrassed [harassed] nor subjected to unreasonable
repeated appearances by the grand jury or the prosecuting attorney assisting the grand
jury.

History: Laws 1979, ch. 337, § 10; 1978 Comp., § 31-3A-1, recompiled as 1978 Comp.,
§ 31-6-15.

                                     ANNOTATIONS
Bracketed material. — The bracketed material in the catchline and in Subsection B
was inserted by the compiler and it is not part of the law.

Cross references. — For witness immunity, see Rule 5-116.

Applicability. — Section 31-6-15 NMSA 1978 applies only to grand jury proceedings
and not to court proceedings. State v. Brown, 1998-NMSC-037, 126 N.M. 338, 969 P.2d
313.

Section applies only to immunity for testimony before grand juries and not to
immunity for testimony at trial. State v. Summerall, 1986-NMSC-080, 105 N.M. 82, 728
P.2d 833, rev'g 1986-NMCA-032, 105 N.M. 84, 728 P.2d 835.

The very purpose of granting immunity is to reach the truth. State v. Boeglin, 1983-
NMSC-088, 100 N.M. 470, 672 P.2d 643.

Witness must testify truthfully. — Implicit in Subsection A is the fact that a witness
must testify truthfully or be subject to being prosecuted: (1) for perjury committed in
such testimony or in producing such evidence; or (2) for contempt for failure to give an
answer or produce evidence. To hold otherwise would make this statute meaningless.
State v. Boeglin, 1983-NMSC-088, 100 N.M. 470, 672 P.2d 643.

Prosecutor applies for, court grants, use immunity. — Taken together, Rule 5-116,
Rule 11-412, and this section give the trial court the authority to grant use immunity
when it is applied for by the prosecutor. State v. Summerall, 1986-NMCA-032, 105 N.M.
84, 728 P.2d 835, rev'd, 1986-NMSC-080, 105 N.M. 82, 728 P.2d 833.

Limitations to derivative use immunity. — This statute and its implementing rules,
Rule 5-116 and Rule 11-412 NMRA, allow the government to compel a witness to testify
and then prosecute the witness for the crimes mentioned in the compelled testimony, as
long as neither the testimony itself nor any information directly or indirectly derived from
the testimony is used in the prosecution. However, it is not enough for the prosecutor to
simply assert that all evidence to be used at trial was obtained prior to the defendant's
immunized testimony; instead, the state should have included testimony from key
witnesses, along with testimony from the prosecutor and the investigators, that the
witnesses had not had access or otherwise been exposed to the defendant's immunized
testimony. State v. Vallejos, 1994-NMSC-107, 118 N.M. 572, 883 P.2d 1269.

Law reviews. — For note, "Criminal Procedure - The Fifth Amendment Privilege
Against Self-Incrimination Applies to Juveniles in Court-Ordered Psychological
Evaluations: State v. Christopher P.," see 23 N.M.L. Rev. 305 (1993).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Propriety of blanket or per se rule
prohibiting federal grand jury from indicting witness who has previously testified before
same grand jury under grant of use immunity, 139 A.L.R. Fed. 489.