N.M. Stat. § 66-7-339 (2026)

A. Where sidewalks are provided, it is unlawful for a pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway.

B. Where sidewalks are not provided, a pedestrian walking along and upon a highway shall, when practicable, walk only on the left side of the roadway or its shoulder facing traffic that may approach from the opposite direction.  C. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a penalty assessment misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 64-7-339, enacted by Laws 1978, ch. 35, § 443; 2018, ch. 74, § 47.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For duty of driver to take precautions when approaching blind person, see 28-7-4 NMSA 1978.

The 2018 amendment, effective July 1, 2018, provided a penalty for a violation of the provisions of this section, and made technical changes; and added Subsection C.

Elements of a violation of pedestrians on roadways. — The elements the state must show to prove a violation of § 66-7-339(A) NMSA 1978, are that the defendant was walking along and upon an adjacent roadway, and a sidewalk was provided. State v. Penman, 2022-NMCA-065, 521 P.3d 96, rev’d in part on other grounds by 2024-NMSC- 024.

Defendant was entitled to pretrial dismissal of his pedestrians on roadways charge. — Where defendant was initially detained for violating the pedestrians on roadways statute, § 66-7-339(A) NMSA 1978, and was later arrested for resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, and where baggies containing cocaine, marijuana, and methamphetamine were found where defendant was arrested and in the patrol vehicle where defendant was placed, which resulted in defendant being charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, one count of battery upon a peace officer, one count of assault upon a peace officer, one count of resisting, evading or obstructing an officer, one count of pedestrians on roadways, and one count of possession of marijuana, and where defendant claimed that he was entitled to dismissal of his pedestrians on roadways charge because the plain language of § 66-7-339(A) requires a pedestrian to walk along and upon an adjacent roadway to a sidewalk, and merely standing in the middle of a residential street without more, as a matter of law, was insufficient to establish a violation, the district court erred in failing to dismiss the charge prior to trial, because the statute clearly identifies that the conduct subject to penalty is walking along and upon an adjacent roadway when a sidewalk is otherwise available for that purpose. The legislature did not intend for anyone who is observed standing in the middle of the roadway, however briefly and for any possible reason, to be subject to punishment under the statute. State v. Penman, 2022-NMCA-065, 521 P.3d 96, rev’d in part on other grounds by 2024-NMSC-024.

Drivers must anticipate pedestrian's presence and exercise reasonable care. — Drivers of automobiles and pedestrians both have the right to the use of the highway. The former must anticipate the presence of the latter and exercise reasonable care to avoid injuring them, commensurate with danger reasonably to be anticipated. Russell v. Davis, 1934-NMSC-076, 38 N.M. 533, 37 P.2d 536. Law reviews. — For comment on Skeet v. Wilson, 76 N.M. 697, 417 P.2d 889 (1966), see 7 Nat. Resources J. 657 (1967).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 7A Am. Jur. 2d Automobiles and Highway Traffic § 287.

Who is "pedestrian" entitled to rights and subject to duties provided by traffic regulations or judicially stated, 35 A.L.R.4th 1117.

Motorist's liability for signaling other vehicle or pedestrian to proceed, or to pass signaling vehicle, 14 A.L.R.5th 193.

60A C.J.S. Motor Vehicles § 389.