N.M. Stat. § 34-5-14 (2026)

to court of appeals; certification of cases to supreme court.
   A. The appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court is coextensive with the state and
extends to all cases where appellate jurisdiction is not specifically vested by law in the
court of appeals.

    B. In addition to its original appellate jurisdiction, the supreme court has jurisdiction
to review by writ of certiorari to the court of appeals any civil or criminal matter in which
the decision of the court of appeals:

       (1)    is in conflict with a decision of the supreme court;

       (2)    is in conflict with a decision of the court of appeals;
       (3)    involves a significant question of law under the constitution of New Mexico
or the United States; or

       (4)   involves an issue of substantial public interest that should be determined
by the supreme court.

    Application to the supreme court for writ of certiorari to the court of appeals shall be
filed with the clerk of the supreme court within twenty days after final action by the court
of appeals. A copy of the application shall be filed by the clerk of the supreme court with
the clerk of the court of appeals and the clerk of the court of appeals shall forthwith
transmit the record in the case to the clerk of the supreme court. Upon filing of the
application, the judgment and mandate of the court of appeals shall be stayed pending
final action of the supreme court. No further briefs or oral argument in support of an
application for writ of certiorari shall be filed or had in the supreme court unless so
directed by the supreme court. If an application has not been acted upon within thirty
days, it shall be deemed denied.

   C. The supreme court has appellate jurisdiction in matters appealed to the court of
appeals, but undecided by that court, if the court of appeals certifies to the supreme
court that the matter involves:

      (1)    a significant question of law under the constitution of New Mexico or the
United States; or

      (2)   an issue of substantial public interest that should be determined by the
supreme court.

    Any certification by the court of appeals under this subsection is a final determination
of appellate jurisdiction.

   D. The jurisdiction of the supreme court over the decisions of the court of appeals
and over actions certified to it by the court of appeals is in addition to the jurisdiction of
the supreme court in the issuance and determination of original writs directed to the
court of appeals.

History: 1953 Comp., § 16-7-14, enacted by Laws 1966, ch. 28, § 14; 1972, ch. 71, § 1.

                                       ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act, see 39-7-1
NMSA 1978.

For appellate jurisdiction of supreme court, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 2 and 39-3-2, 39-
3-3, 39-3-4 NMSA 1978.
For appellate jurisdiction of court of appeals, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 29 and 34-5-8
NMSA 1978.

For procedure on certiorari to review decision of court of appeals, see 12-502 NMRA.

For procedure on certification from court of appeals, see 12-606 NMRA.

Significant question of constitutional law. — Where defendant alleged in his petition
for a writ of certiorari that the state violated his rights as provided under the Fifth, Sixth,
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United State Constitution, and Article II, Section 14
of the New Mexico Constitution, the state supreme court had jurisdiction to review
defendant’s case by writ of certiorari because it involves a significant question of law
under the constitution of New Mexico or the United States. State v. Urban, 2004-NMSC-
007, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061.

Establishing propriety of writ. — Neither Rule 12-502 NMRA nor this section would
require a defendant to establish the propriety of the writ of certiorari in his brief in chief.
State v. Urban, 2004-NMSC-007, 135 N.M. 279, 87 P.3d 1061.

Supreme court has appellate jurisdiction not given court of appeals. — The
appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court "extends to all cases where appellate
jurisdiction is not specifically vested by law in the court of appeals." State v. Weddle,
1967-NMSC-028, 77 N.M. 420, 423 P.2d 611.

Direct appeal to supreme court. — Appellants' claim in prohibition proceedings that a
nonattorney police court judge was not constitutionally qualified to hear their criminal
cases arising from violations of municipal ordinances was properly taken directly from
the district court to the supreme court; the appeal did not fall within the ambit of 16-7-8
NMSA 1978 (now Section 34-5-8 NMSA 1978). Tsiosdia v. Rainaldi, 1976-NMSC-011,
89 N.M. 70, 547 P.2d 553.

Only supreme court may reverse its own precedent. — Implicit in this section is the
concept that the court of appeals is to be governed by the precedents of the supreme
court, and although the supreme court, by abolishing the defense of unavoidable
accident in negligence actions, affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, which had
taken that same action, the supreme court made clear that it, not the court of appeals,
had authority to reverse its own precedent. Alexander v. Delgado, 1973-NMSC-030, 84
N.M. 717, 507 P.2d 778.

Certification of issues to the supreme court. — The court of appeals should certify
an issue when it appears that New Mexico supreme court precedent directly controls
that issue and is contrary to later United States supreme court precedent, and, in
certifications brought under NMSA 1978, § 34-5-14(C), the New Mexico supreme court
accepts certification of issues, rather than cases. State v. Mares, 2024-NMSC-002,
overruling State v. Desnoyers, 2002-NMSC-031, 132 N.M. 756, 55 P.3d 968, and
abrogating Collins ex rel. Collins v. Tabet, 1991-NMSC-013, 111 N.M. 391, 806 P.2d
40, and Rhein v. ADT Auto., 1996-NMSC-066, 122 N.M. 646, 930 P.2d 783.

The court of appeals is bound to follow supreme court precedent. — When the
New Mexico supreme court has directly ruled on an issue in a manner that would be
dispositive in the case at bar, the court of appeals must apply that same rule to the case
at bar. The court of appeals has the authority to depart from New Mexico supreme
court precedent if the precedent does not directly control the issue in the case at bar. A
precedential case is directly controlling if it compels the outcome of the issue in the
current case. State v. Mares, 2024-NMSC-002, overruling State v. Desnoyers, 2002-
NMSC-031, 132 N.M. 756, 55 P.3d 968, and abrogating Collins ex rel. Collins v. Tabet,
1991-NMSC-013, 111 N.M. 391, 806 P.2d 40, and Rhein v. ADT Auto., 1996-NMSC-
066, 122 N.M. 646, 930 P.2d 783.

Appeals and writs of error are in no sense to be compared to certiorari, and the
presence of the right to appeal makes inappropriate and unavailable the right to
certiorari. Roberson v. Board of Educ., 1967-NMSC-176, 78 N.M. 297, 430 P.2d 868.

Limitation on right of appeal does not extend to certiorari. — There is no reason to
assume that the legislature, in limiting the state's right to appeal in a criminal case,
intended a like limitation in the granting of a writ of certiorari. On the contrary, this
section indicates that these remedies are to be considered separately. State v.
Gunzelman, 1973-NMSC-055, 85 N.M. 295, 512 P.2d 55, overruled on other grounds
by State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, 113 N.M. 780, 833 P.2d 1146.

Certiorari may be issued in criminal cases. — The supreme court has the authority
to issue writs of certiorari directed to the court of appeals in a criminal case where the
conditions of this section are met, and the court's original jurisdiction to issue writs of
certiorari, as provided for in N.M. Const., art. VI, § 3, leaves no doubt as to the power of
the court to issue such writs. State v. Gunzelman, 1973-NMSC-055, 85 N.M. 295, 512
P.2d 55, overruled on other grounds by State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, 113 N.M.
780, 833 P.2d 1146.

Claim of prosecutorial misconduct. — The supreme court had jurisdiction by writ of
certiorari to review defendant's claim he was denied a fair trial because of prosecutorial
misconduct. State v. Ashley, 1997-NMSC-049, 124 N.M. 1, 946 P.2d 205.

State may seek writ of certiorari. — Although the reason for granting the writ of
certiorari petitioned for by the state is based upon this section, it should be noted that
N.M. Const., art. VI, § 3, in addition to the authority of N.M. Const., art. VI, § 2, and this
section, states that this court "shall have a superintending control over all inferior courts;
it shall also have power to issue writs of . . . certiorari . . . and all other writs necessary
or proper for the complete exercise of its jurisdiction and to hear and determine the
same." State v. Gunzelman, 1973-NMSC-055, 85 N.M. 295, 512 P.2d 55, overruled on
other grounds by State v. Orosco, 1992-NMSC-006, 113 N.M. 780, 833 P.2d 1146.
Rulings held not to raise issues of substantial public interest. — Rulings of the
court of appeals concerning statements by district attorney in closing argument held not
to raise issues of substantial public interest which should be determined by the supreme
court under Paragraph B(4). Deats v. State, 1969-NMSC-029, 80 N.M. 77, 451 P.2d
981.

Denial of certiorari not affirmance or precedent. — The denial of a petition for writ of
certiorari by the court of last resort to review a decision of a court of intermediate appeal
is not regarded as an affirmance of such decision which raises it to the dignity of final
authority. The denial cannot be utilized as precedent or authority for or against the
propositions urged or defended in such proceedings, nor can it be urged as approval of
the rule announced in the court of intermediate appeal. State v. Cutnose, 1975-NMCA-
021, 87 N.M. 300, 532 P.2d 889, overruled on other grounds by State v. McCormack,
1984-NMSC-006, 100 N.M. 657, 674 P.2d 1117.

Writ of certiorari not properly granted. — Jurisdiction by writ of certiorari was not
appropriate since the issue in the case only involved a difference of opinion between the
district court and the court of appeals and none of the conditions in Subsection B of this
section were present. State v. Conn, 1993-NMSC-004, 115 N.M. 99, 847 P.2d 744.

Applicability of Subsection C. — Subsection C extends to "matters appealed to the
court of appeals, but undecided by that court," if the court makes the requisite
certification. The word "matter" means the entire case in which the appeal is taken.
Collins ex rel. Collins v. Tabet, 1991-NMSC-013, 111 N.M. 391, 806 P.2d 40, abrogated
by State v Mares, 2024-NMSC-002.

Cases certified where two court of appeals judges concurred but on different
grounds. — Where there are three separate opinions of the court of appeals, the first of
which would affirm the conviction of defendant on all counts, the second and third of
which would reverse and remand for a new trial on two different issues, and it appears
that the three proposed opinions, if filed as opinions of the court of appeals, would
create uncertainty in the law in that, although there is a majority for reversal, there is no
guidance for the future procedure of the case, and it further appears that the court of
appeals may not call in additional judges, and, because an uncertain state of law should
not exist and because of this fact an issue of substantial public interest is created and
should be determined by the supreme court, the case is properly certified to the New
Mexico supreme court for decision. State v. Tijerina, 1972-NMCA-169, 84 N.M. 432,
504 P.2d 642; State v. Tijerina, 1973-NMSC-105, 86 N.M. 31, 519 P.2d 127, cert.
denied, 417 U.S. 956, 94 S. Ct. 3085, 41 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1974).

Instructions on intent in criminal cases. — The matter of instructions concerning the
requisite intent in criminal cases is one of substantial public interest that should be
decided by the New Mexico supreme court. State v. Boyer, 1973-NMCA-047, 84 N.M.
759, 508 P.2d 29; State v. Vickery, 1973-NMCA-046, 84 N.M. 758, 508 P.2d 28; State
v. Fuentes, 1973-NMCA-045, 84 N.M. 757, 508 P.2d 27; State v. Puga, 1973-NMCA-
044, 84 N.M. 756, 508 P.2d 26.
Interlocutory appeal granted to consider contributory negligence doctrine. — The
supreme court granted an interlocutory appeal from the court of appeals pursuant to this
section to determine the current validity of contributory negligence in New Mexico law.
Syroid v. Albuquerque Gravel Prods. Co., 1974-NMSC-039, 86 N.M. 235, 522 P.2d 570.

Delay alone insufficient ground for certification. — Delay by the court of appeals in
deciding an appeal of a decision holding a statutory act unconstitutional was an
insufficient ground for certification to the supreme court, where the delay occurred
because primary consideration was given to priority cases and there was no showing
that the assigned panel lacked authority to decide the issue, was unable to decide it, or
felt it should not decide the issue because it was before the supreme court in other
cases. Deer Mesa Corp. v. Los Tres Valles Special Zoning Dist. Comm'n, 1985-NMCA-
114, 103 N.M. 675, 712 P.2d 21.

Minimum procedural requirements must be met. — Even where applications or
petitions are required by statute which also provides for liberal interpretation, certain
minimum requirements must be met. Roberson v. Board of Educ., 1967-NMSC-176, 78
N.M. 297, 430 P.2d 868.

Court of appeals cannot review extensions of time after certification. — The court
of appeals is without authority to review supreme court orders granting extensions of
time to commence trial, where defendant's cause, challenging the validity of the
supreme court's ex parte order granting the state an extension of time in which to try
defendant, was certified to that court. State v. Carter, 1974-NMCA-141, 87 N.M. 41, 528
P.2d 1281.

Substantial public interest. — The certified question of whether New Mexico should
adopt the rule adopted in Arizona that, as a matter of law and public policy, the
attractive nuisance doctrine should not be extended to flumes and irrigation ditches is
an issue of substantial public interest. Carmona v. Hagerman Irrigation Co., 1998-
NMSC-007, 125 N.M. 59, 957 P.2d 44.

The application of the venue provisions of 38-3-1 NMSA 1978 to a national banking
association presented an issue of "substantial public interest" so as to justify
certification under Subsection C(2). Sunwest Bank v. Nelson, 1998-NMSC-012, 125
N.M. 170, 958 P.2d 740.

Supreme court had jurisdiction to hear appeal from the court of appeals' denial of
municipal judge's Writ of Superintendent Control brought against a presiding judge who
voided his DWI sentences; the question was one of "substantial public interest" and,
therefore, properly before the supreme court under this section. Sims v. Ryan, 1998-
NMSC-019, 125 N.M. 357, 961 P.2d 782.

Law reviews. — For article, "Approaching Statutory Interpretation in New Mexico," see
8 Nat. Resources J. 689 (1968).
For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1982-83: Civil Procedure," see 14 N.M.L. Rev.
17 (1984).

For article, "Separation of Powers and the Judicial Rule-Making Power in New Mexico:
The Need for Prudential Restraints," see 15 N.M.L. Rev. 407 (1985).

For article, "Jurisdiction As May Be Provided by Law: Some Issues of Appellate
Jurisdiction in New Mexico," see 36 N.M.L. Rev. 215 (2006).