New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17 (2026)
Predisposition studies; reports and examinations.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. After a petition has been filed and either a finding with respect to the allegations
of the petition has been made or a notice of intent to admit the allegations of the petition
has been filed, the court may direct that a predisposition study and report to the court be
made in writing by the department or an appropriate agency designated by the court
concerning the child, the family of the child, the environment of the child and any other
matters relevant to the need for treatment or to appropriate disposition of the case. The
following predisposition reports shall be provided to the parties and the court five days
before actual disposition or sentencing:
(1) the adult probation and parole division of the corrections department shall
prepare a predisposition report for a serious youthful offender;
(2) the department shall prepare a predisposition report for a serious youthful
offender who is convicted of an offense other than first degree murder;
(3) the department shall prepare a predisposition report for a youthful offender
concerning the youthful offender's amenability to treatment and if:
(a) the court determines that a juvenile disposition is appropriate, the
department shall prepare a subsequent predisposition report; or
(b) the court makes the findings necessary to impose an adult sentence
pursuant to Section 32A-2-20 NMSA 1978, the adult probation and parole division of the
corrections department shall prepare a subsequent predisposition report; and
(4) the department shall prepare a predisposition report for a delinquent
offender, upon the court's request.
B. Where there are indications that the child may have a mental disorder or
developmental disability, the court, on motion by the children's court attorney or that of
counsel for the child, may order the child to be examined at a suitable place by a
physician or psychiatrist, a licensed psychologist, a licensed professional clinical
counselor or a licensed independent social worker prior to a hearing on the merits of the
petition. An examination made prior to the hearing or as a part of the predisposition
study and report shall be conducted on an outpatient basis, unless the court finds that
placement in a hospital or other appropriate facility is necessary.
C. The court, after a hearing, may order examination by a physician or psychiatrist,
a licensed psychologist or a licensed professional clinical counselor or a licensed
independent social worker of a parent or custodian whose ability to care for or supervise
a child is an issue before the court.
D. The court may order that a child adjudicated as a delinquent child be
administered a predispositional evaluation by a professional designated by the
department for purposes of diagnosis, with direction that the court be given a report
indicating what disposition appears most suitable when the interests of the child and the
public are considered. The evaluation shall be completed within fifteen days of the
court's order and the preference shall be for performing the evaluation in the child's
community.
E. If a child is detained for purposes of performing a predispositional evaluation, it
shall be completed within fifteen days and in no event shall a child be detained for more
than fifteen days within a three-hundred-sixty-five-day period for a predispositional
evaluation, unless for good cause shown.
History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-2-17, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 46; 1995, ch. 206,
§ 12; 2005, ch. 189, § 15; 2009, ch. 239, § 19.
ANNOTATIONS
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, in Subsection B, after "place by a
physician", added "or psychiatrist" and after "licensed psychologist", added "a license
professional clinical counselor"; in Subsection C, after "examination by a physician",
added "or psychiatrist"; and after "psychologist or a licensed", added "professional
clinical counselor or a licensed"; in Subsection D, after "delinquent child be", deleted
"transferred to the facility designated by the secretary of the department for a period of
not more than fifteen days within a three hundred sixty-five day time period"; added
"administered a predispositional evaluation by a professional designated by the
department"; and added the last sentence; deleted former Subsection E, which provided
for a determination of the time when a child who was committed was to be released;
and added Subsection E.
Applicability. — Laws 2009, ch. 239, § 71, provided that the provisions of this act apply
to all children who, on July 1, 2009, are on release or are otherwise eligible to be placed
on release as if the Juvenile Public Safety Advisory Board Act had been in effect at the
time they were placed on release or became eligible to be released.
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, changed "offenders" to the singular
case in Subsection A and changed mental disorder and development disability from a
state of being to a condition in Subsection B.
The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, inserted "concerning the youthful
offender's amenability to treatment and if" in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A and added
Subparagraphs A(3)(a) and A(3)(b).
Decisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations
decided under former Section 32-1-32 NMSA 1978 have been included in the
annotations to this section.
Procedure to determine amenability to treatment. — The trial court is required to
request a report from the children, youth and families department on a youthful
offender’s amenability to treatment and if the youthful offender is found not to be
amenable to treatment, the trial court is required to request a subsequent predisposition
report from the department of corrections and conduct a separate sentencing hearing.
State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, 142 N.M. 829, 171 P.3d 768, cert. quashed, 2008-
NMCERT-004, 144 N.M. 47, 183 P.3d 932.
Relevancy of predisposition reports. — The court may properly call for information in
deciding whether to accept or reject a consent decree or provide for a more favorable
disposition of the child, as predisposition reports are relevant in deciding an appropriate
disposition of the case, and calling for information on the child's background is
consistent with the legislative purpose of providing a "program of supervision, care and
rehabilitation." State v. Doe, 1978-NMCA-124, 92 N.M. 354, 588 P.2d 555, cert. denied,
92 N.M. 353, 588 P.2d 554.
Law reviews. — For comment, "The Freedom of the Press vs. The Confidentiality
Provisions in the New Mexico Children's Code," see 4 N.M.L. Rev. 119 (1973).
For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases
Under the New Rules," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976).Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2005–2026 · leading case: State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, 171 P.3d 768.
State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, 171 P.3d 768. “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender’s amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. JOSE S., 171 P.3d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender's amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, 258 P.3d 1024. “The Court of Appeals rejected the argument because although it agreed that Child had not shown prejudice, "Child is thwarted in his attempt to show prejudice because the reports do not exist." Id. ¶ 21. The court went on to emphasize that "Child has no way of demonstrating that…”
Ira v. Janecka, 419 P.3d 161 (N.M. 2018). “Third, Ira contends that he did not receive a report from the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) prior to the amenability hearing required by NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A)(3) (1995, amended 2009).”
State v. Linares, 2017-NMSC-014, 393 P.3d 691. “{7} The parties agreed that a predisposition study and report addressing Linares’s amenability to treatment would be beneficial and Linares asked the court, citing NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-17 (2005), to order the Children, Youth and Families Department to prepare a pre-disposition…”
State v. Stephen F., 2006-NMSC-030, 140 N.M. 24. “No such rule applies in the district courts because all persons before the district courts are sentenced as adults.”
Ira v. Janecka, 2018-NMSC-027. “Third, Ira contends that he did not receive a report from the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) prior to the amenability hearing required by NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A)(3) (1995, amended 2009).”
State v. Stephen F., 2005-NMCA-048, 112 P.3d 270. “]” NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-17(D) (1995). Thus, it appears that the Supreme Court settled on a forty-five-day time limit applicable to children committed for diagnosis by adding the fifteen days permitted by Section 32A-2-17(D) to the thirty days adopted in Rule 1-229(B) for the…”
State v. Joshua G (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Report Required Under Section 32A-2-17(A) 8 Child argues that the predisposition report did not comply with statutory 9 requirements.”
State v. Vallejos (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). “6 [RP 250] Our second notice of proposed summary disposition proposed to reverse and 7 remand based on (1) what appeared to be the district court’s failure to request and 8 obtain a report from Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), as provided 9 for in NMSA 1978,…”
State v. Sanchez (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “As for his adult sentence, Defendant argues that the district court failed to comply with NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A) (2009), by immediately sentencing Defendant as an adult after its nonamenability determination.”
State v. Carissa M (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “2 On appeal, Child makes four claims: (1) that NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-20 3 (2005) (amended 2009) is unconstitutional because the issue of amenability must be 4 decided by a jury; (2) that the district court abused its discretion in determining that 5 she is not amenable to…”
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17(A): 5 cases
State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, 171 P.3d 768. “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender’s amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. JOSE S., 171 P.3d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender's amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. Sanchez (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “As for his adult sentence, Defendant argues that the district court failed to comply with NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A) (2009), by immediately sentencing Defendant as an adult after its nonamenability determination.”
State v. Joshua G (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Report Required Under Section 32A-2-17(A) 8 Child argues that the predisposition report did not comply with statutory 9 requirements.”
State v. Vallejos (N.M. Ct. App. 2016). “6 [RP 250] Our second notice of proposed summary disposition proposed to reverse and 7 remand based on (1) what appeared to be the district court’s failure to request and 8 obtain a report from Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD), as provided 9 for in NMSA 1978,…”
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17(A)(2): 1 case
State v. Joshua G (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “Report Required Under Section 32A-2-17(A) 8 Child argues that the predisposition report did not comply with statutory 9 requirements.”
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17(A)(3): 8 cases
State v. Gutierrez, 2011-NMSC-024, 258 P.3d 1024. “The Court of Appeals rejected the argument because although it agreed that Child had not shown prejudice, "Child is thwarted in his attempt to show prejudice because the reports do not exist." Id. ¶ 21. The court went on to emphasize that "Child has no way of demonstrating that…”
Ira v. Janecka, 419 P.3d 161 (N.M. 2018). “Third, Ira contends that he did not receive a report from the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) prior to the amenability hearing required by NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A)(3) (1995, amended 2009).”
State v. Stephen F., 2006-NMSC-030, 140 N.M. 24. “No such rule applies in the district courts because all persons before the district courts are sentenced as adults.”
State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, 171 P.3d 768. “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender’s amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. JOSE S., 171 P.3d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender's amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17(A)(3)(B): 1 case
State v. Sanchez (N.M. Ct. App. 2026). “As for his adult sentence, Defendant argues that the district court failed to comply with NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A) (2009), by immediately sentencing Defendant as an adult after its nonamenability determination.”
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17(A)(3)(b): 4 cases
Ira v. Janecka, 419 P.3d 161 (N.M. 2018). “Third, Ira contends that he did not receive a report from the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) prior to the amenability hearing required by NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-17(A)(3) (1995, amended 2009).”
State v. Jose S., 2007-NMCA-146, 171 P.3d 768. “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender’s amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. JOSE S., 171 P.3d 768 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007). “We consider the proper procedures that a trial court must follow in determining a youthful offender's amenability to treatment and, in the event that a youthful offender is determined not to be amenable to treatment, the proper procedures for sentencing the youthful offender to…”
State v. Carissa M (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “2 On appeal, Child makes four claims: (1) that NMSA 1978, Section 32A-2-20 3 (2005) (amended 2009) is unconstitutional because the issue of amenability must be 4 decided by a jury; (2) that the district court abused its discretion in determining that 5 she is not amenable to…”
N.M. Stat. § 32A-2-17(D): 1 case
State v. Stephen F., 2005-NMCA-048, 112 P.3d 270. “]” NMSA 1978, § 32A-2-17(D) (1995). Thus, it appears that the Supreme Court settled on a forty-five-day time limit applicable to children committed for diagnosis by adding the fifteen days permitted by Section 32A-2-17(D) to the thirty days adopted in Rule 1-229(B) for the…”
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.