N.M. Stat. » Chapter 40 — Domestic Affairs
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 40-1-3 (2026)

Ceremony by religious society

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

It is lawful for any religious society or federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo to solemnize marriage conformably with its rites and customs, and the secretary of the society or the person authorized by the society or federally recognized Indian nation, tribe or pueblo shall make and transmit a transcript to the county clerk certifying to the marriages solemnized.

History: Laws 1862-1863, p. 66; C.L. 1865, ch. 75, § 8; C.L. 1884, § 984; C.L. 1897, § 1421; Code 1915, § 3428; C.S. 1929, § 87-104; 1941 Comp., § 65-103; 1953 Comp., § 57-1-3; Laws 1983, ch. 193, § 2; 1989, ch. 78, § 2; 2013, ch. 144, § 3.

ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — As originally enacted, this section also contained the words: "and it shall be the duty of said clerk to record said marriages in the same manner as provided for in the foregoing section, and in case said society or the secretary or the person president thereof fail to comply with the provisions hereof, the same shall incur the penalty provided in the fifth section of this act, which shall be recovered in the same manner as is prescribed in said section." That provision was deleted by the 1915 Code compilers as impliedly repealed by Laws 1905, ch. 65, § 4 (40-1-15 NMSA 1978).

The 2013 amendment, effective June 14, 2013, provided for the solemnization of marriage pursuant to the rites and customs of Indian nations, tribes of pueblos; after "recognized Indian", changed "tribe" to "nation, tribe or pueblo"; after "or pueblo to", deleted "celebrate" and added "solemnize"’; after "society or the person", deleted "presiding over" and added "authorized by"; and after "recognized Indian", deleted "tribe" and added "nation, tribe or pueblo".

The 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, twice inserted "or federally recognized Indian tribe", and made minor stylistic changes.

Lack of evidence of license does not rebut presumption of marriage. — Mere lack of evidence of a record of the issuance of a license or of a ceremonial marriage is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of a ceremonial marriage. Trower v. Board of Cnty. Comm'rs, 1965-NMSC-040, 75 N.M. 125, 401 P.2d 109, overruled on other grounds by Panzer v. Panzer, 1974-NMSC-092, 87 N.M. 29, 528 P.2d 888.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1955–2019 · leading case: Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Martinez, 361 P.2d 152 (N.M. 1961).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brown Ex Rel. Brown v. Martinez, 361 P.2d 152 (N.M. 1961). · cites it 2× “A reading of the statute makes it clear that for the acts to be felonious the unlawful injury to the fence and unlawful and malicious destruction or injury to the crop must coincide.”
State v. Gutierrez, 482 P.3d 700 (N.M. 2019). · cites it 2× “THE SPOUSAL COMMUNICATIONS PRIVILEGE SHOULD NOT BE ABOLISHED {85} The spousal communications privilege serves to protect the private conversations that occur within a marriage. See Rule 11-505. Marriage bridges several facets of the human experience.”
State v. Garcia, 594 P.2d 1186 (N.M. Ct. App. 1979). “Sections 40-1-3 and 40-11-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (Original Vol.”
State v. Klantchnek, 283 P.2d 619 (N.M. 1955). · cites it 2× “Our statute, § 40-1-3, 1953 Comp., reads: “ ‘Felony’ defined.”
State v. Jones, 389 P.2d 398 (N.M. 1964). “In the case before us, § 40-21-1, supra, requires imprisonment in the penitentiary, and § 40-1-3, N.M.S.A., 1953 Comp., makes the offense a felony.”
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.