reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
NM Stat § 30-9-17.1 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 9 - Sexual Offenses|Section 30-9-17.1 - Victims; polygraph examinations; prohibited actions.

A law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney or other government official shall not ask or require an adult, youth or child victim of a sexual offense provided in Sections 30-9-11 through 30-9-13 NMSA 1978 to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth-telling device as a condition for proceeding with the investigation, charging or prosecution of the offense. The victim's refusal to submit to a polygraph examination or other truth-telling device shall not prevent the investigation, charging or prosecution of the offense. History: Laws 2008, ch. 10, § 1. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2008, ch. 10, § 2 made this section effective July 1, 2008.
NM Stat § 30-9-18 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 9 - Sexual Offenses|Section 30-9-18 - Alleged victims who are under thirteen years of age; psychological evaluation.

In any prosecution for criminal sexual penetration or criminal sexual contact of a minor, if the alleged victim is under thirteen years of age, the court may hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether to order a psychological evaluation of the alleged victim on the issue of competency as a witness. If the court determines that the issue of competency is in sufficient doubt that the court requires expert assistance, then the court may order a psychological evaluation of the alleged victim, provided however, that if a psychological evaluation is ordered it shall be conducted by only one psychologist or psychiatrist selected by the court who may be utilized by either or both parties; further provided that if the alleged victim has been evaluated on the issue of competency during the course of investigation by a psychologist or psychiatrist selected in whole or in part by law enforcement officials, the psychological evaluation, if any, shall be conducted by a psychologist or psychiatrist selected by the court upon the recommendation of the defense. History: Laws 1987, ch. 118, § 1. ANNOTATIONSVictim's past allegations against a third party. — Where the trial court excluded evidence of the victim's past allegations against a third party which related to the victim's reputation for past sexual conduct, the victim made the allegations against the third party in the past; the circumstances of the prior incident in no way resembled the allegations that led to the charges against the defendant; the defendant did not show that the circumstances of the prior allegations were clearly relevant to any material issue in the defendant's case other than propensity; and the defendant did not show how the prior allegations related to the defendant's defense, the trial court properly excluded the evidence. State v. Casillas, 2009-NMCA-034, 145 N.M. 783, 205 P.3d 830, cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-003, 146 N.M. 603, 213 P.3d 507. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Witnesses: child competency statutes, 60 A.L.R.4th 369.
NM Stat § 30-9-20 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 9 - Sexual Offenses|Section 30-9-20 - Voyeurism prohibited; penalties.

A. Voyeurism consists of intentionally using the unaided eye to view or intentionally using an instrumentality to view, photograph, videotape, film, webcast or record the intimate areas of another person without the knowledge and consent of that person: (1) while the person is in the interior of a bedroom, bathroom, changing room, fitting room, dressing room or tanning booth or the interior of any other area in which the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy; or (2) under circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy, whether in a public or private place. B. Whoever commits voyeurism is guilty of a misdemeanor, except if the victim is less than eighteen years of age, the offender is guilty of a fourth degree felony. C. As used in this section: (1) "intimate areas" means the primary genital area, groin, buttocks, anus or breasts or the undergarments that cover those areas; and (2) "instrumentality" means a periscope, telescope, binoculars, camcorder, computer, motion picture camera, digital camera, telephone camera, photographic camera or electronic device of any type. History: Laws 2007, ch. 238, § 1. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2007, ch. 238, § 2 made this section effective on July 1, 2007.
NM Stat § 30-10-1 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 10 - Marital and Familial Offenses|Section 30-10-1 - Bigamy.

Bigamy consists of knowingly entering into a marriage by or with a person who has previously contracted one or more marriages which have not been dissolved by death, divorce or annulment. Both parties may be principals. Whoever commits bigamy is guilty of a fourth degree felony. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-10-1, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 10-1. ANNOTATIONSElements. — Knowledge is an element of the crime of bigamy. Evidence of defendant's legal knowledge is admissible to rebut a defense that defendant did not know he was not divorced when he remarried. State v. Ashley, 1997-NMSC-049, 124 N.M. 1, 946 P.2d 205. Cohabitation without marriage contrary to public policy. — Prior to its repeal, 30-10-2 NMSA 1978 declared cohabitation a criminal offense. In re Estate of Bivians, 1982-NMCA-132, 98 N.M. 722, 652 P.2d 744, cert. quashed, 98 N.M. 762, 652 P.2d 1213 (decided under prior law). Meaning clear. — The meaning of "bigamy" as used in Code 1915, § 1775 was universally understood, and no language could have been employed which would have made clearer the intention of the legislature. State v. Lindsey, 1921-NMSC-004, 26 N.M. 526, 194 P. 877 (decided under prior law). Indictment. — It was not necessary to allege knowledge or intention in an indictment for bigamy. State v. Lindsey, 1921-NMSC-004, 26 N.M. 526, 194 P. 877 (decided under prior law). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 10 Am. Jur. 2d Bigamy §§ 1 to 5. Common-law marriage, prosecution based on, 70 A.L.R. 1036. Validation of marriage by death of former spouse, 95 A.L.R. 1292. Mistake as to validity or effect of divorce as defense to, 56 A.L.R.2d 915. Crimes against spouse within exception permitting testimony by one spouse against other in criminal prosecution - modern state cases, 74 A.L.R.4th 223. 10 C.J.S. Bigamy § 2 et seq.
NM Stat § 30-10-2 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 10 - Marital and Familial Offenses|Section 30-10-2 - Repealed.

ANNOTATIONSRepeals. — Laws 2001, ch. 32, § 1 repealed 30-10-2 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 10-2, relating to unlawful cohabitation and the penalties subscribed thereto, effective June 15, 2001. For provisions of former section, see the 2000 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com.
NM Stat § 30-12-2 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-2 - Grounds for order of interception.

An ex parte order for wiretapping, eavesdropping or the interception of any wire or oral communication may be issued by any judge of a district court upon application of the attorney general or a district attorney, stating that there is probable cause to believe that: A. evidence may be obtained of the commission of: (1) the crime of murder, kidnapping, extortion, robbery, trafficking or distribution of controlled substances or bribery of a witness; (2) the crime of burglary, aggravated burglary, criminal sexual penetration, arson, mayhem, receiving stolen property or commercial gambling, if punishable by imprisonment for more than one year; or (3) an organized criminal conspiracy to commit any of the aforementioned crimes; or B. the communication, conversation or discussion is itself an element of any of the above specified crimes. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.1, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 2; 1979, ch. 191, § 2. ANNOTATIONSLaw reviews. — For survey of 1990-91 criminal procedure and evidence, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 713 (1992). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Permissible surveillance, under state communications interception statute, by person other than state or local law enforcement officer or one acting in concert with officer, 24 A.L.R.4th 1208.
NM Stat § 30-12-4 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-4 - Entry of order; determination.

Upon application, the judge may enter an ex parte order, as requested or as modified, authorizing or approving wiretapping, eavesdropping or the interception of wire or oral communications within the district in which the judge is sitting, if the judge determines on the basis of the facts submitted by the applicant that: A. there is probable cause for belief that a person is committing, has committed or is about to commit a particular offense enumerated in 30-12-2 NMSA 1978; B. there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning that offense will be obtained through such interception; C. normal investigative procedures have been tried and failed, or reasonably appear unlikely to succeed if tried, or appear to be too dangerous; and D. there is probable cause for belief that the facilities from which, or the place where, the wire or oral communications are to be intercepted is being used or is about to be used in connection with the commission of such offense, or is leased to, listed in the name of or commonly used by the person alleged to be involved in the commission of the offense. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.3, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 4. ANNOTATIONSRequirement for probable cause. — An affidavit was deficient with respect to an unnamed informant because, although it established the informant's reliability by stating that he had provided information in the past that led to a determination of probable cause for a search warrant and to arrests and prosecution of narcotics felons, the informant's basis of knowledge was lacking. State v. Knight, 2000-NMCA-016, 128 N.M. 591, 995 P.2d 1033, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 689, 997 P.2d 821, overruled on other grounds by State v. Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376. An affidavit met the basis of the knowledge requirement because it related in detail the informant's meetings and conversations with the subject, and clearly described the underlying circumstances upon which the informant's information was based. State v. Knight, 2000-NMCA-016, 128 N.M. 591, 995 P.2d 1033, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 689, 997 P.2d 821, overruled on other grounds by State v. Williamson, 2009-NMSC-039, 146 N.M. 488, 212 P.3d 376. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — When do facts shown as probable cause for wiretap authorization under 18 USCS § 2518(3) become "stale," 68 A.L.R. Fed. 953.
NM Stat § 30-12-5 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-5 - Contents of order.

A. Each order authorizing or approving wiretapping, eavesdropping or interception of wire or oral communications shall specify: (1) the identity, if known, of the person whose communications are to be intercepted; (2) the nature and location of the communication facilities as to which, or the place where, authority to intercept is granted; (3) a particular description of the type of communication sought to be intercepted and a statement of the particular offense to which it relates; (4) the identity of the agency authorized to intercept the communications, and of the person authorizing the application; and (5) the period of time during which such interception is authorized, including a statement as to whether the interception automatically terminates when the described communication has been first obtained. B. An order authorizing the interception of a wire or oral communication shall, upon request of the applicant, direct that a communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person shall furnish the applicant forthwith all information, facilities and technical assistance necessary to accomplish the interception unobtrusively and with a minimum of interference with the services that such carrier, landlord, custodian or person is according the person whose communications are to be intercepted. Any communication common carrier, landlord, custodian or other person furnishing such facilities or technical assistance shall be compensated therefor by the applicant at the prevailing rates. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.4, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 5.
NM Stat § 30-12-6 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-6 - Order; extension; requirements.

No order entered under this act [30-12-1 to 30-12-11 NMSA 1978] may authorize or approve the interception of any wire or oral communication for any period longer than is necessary to achieve the objective of the authorization, nor in any event longer than thirty days. Extensions of an order may be granted, but only upon application for an extension, made in accordance with Section 30-12-3 NMSA 1978, and if the court makes the findings required by Section 30-12-4 NMSA 1978. The period of extension shall be no longer than the authorizing judge deems necessary to achieve the purpose for which it was granted, and in no event longer than thirty days. Every order and extension thereof shall contain a provision that the authorization to intercept shall be executed as soon as practicable, shall be conducted in such a way as to minimize the interception under this act and shall terminate upon attainment of the authorized objective, or in any event within thirty days. Whenever an order authorizing interception is entered pursuant to this act, the order may require reports to be made to the judge who issued the order, showing what progress has been made toward achievement of the authorized objective and the need for continued interception. The reports shall be made at such times as the judge may require. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.5, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 6. ANNOTATIONSInterception of nonrelevant conversations. — This section does not forbid interception of all nonrelevant conversations, but, like the federal statute, mandates the government to conduct the surveillance so as to minimize the interception of such conversations. Factors to be considered in determining whether the government acted reasonably in a given case may include, but are not limited to, the complexity of the criminal operation, whether the callers are using ambiguous or coded language, whether the applicable telephone is public or residential, the length of time of the wiretap and of the telephone calls, and the extent of judicial supervision. State v. Manes, 1991-NMCA-025, 112 N.M. 161, 812 P.2d 1309, cert. denied, 112 N.M. 77, 811 P.2d 575, and cert. denied, 502 U.S. 942, 112 S. Ct. 381, 116 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1991). The defendant argued that the police, who wiretapped his phone, failed to properly minimize the interception of unauthorized communications, those involving his wife, mother, and children. To prevail, he had to show a pattern of interception of innocent conversations which developed over the period of the wiretap; it was insufficient if he merely identified particular calls which he contended should not have been intercepted. State v. Manes, 1991-NMCA-025, 112 N.M. 161, 812 P.2d 1309, cert. denied, 112 N.M. 77, 811 P.2d 575, and cert. denied, 502 U.S. 942, 112 S. Ct. 381, 116 L. Ed. 2d 332 (1991). Law reviews. — For survey of 1990-91 criminal procedure and evidence, see 22 N.M.L. Rev. 713 (1992).
NM Stat § 30-12-9 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-9 - Disclosure; when and by whom allowed.

A. Any investigative or law enforcement officer who, by any means authorized by this act [30-12-1 to 30-12-11 NMSA 1978], has obtained knowledge of the contents of any wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, may: (1) disclose such contents to another investigative or law enforcement officer to the extent that such disclosure is appropriate to the proper performance of the official duties of the officer making or receiving the disclosure; or (2) use such contents to the extent such use is appropriate in the official performance of his official duties. B. Any person who has received, by any means authorized by this act, any information concerning a wire or oral communication, or evidence derived therefrom, intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this act, may disclose the contents of that communication or such derivative evidence while giving testimony in any criminal proceeding in any court of this state or in any grand jury proceeding. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.8, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 9. ANNOTATIONSRight of press to copies of evidentiary material arises where materials become public. — The right of the press to copies of evidentiary materials does not arise until the materials become part of the public record or are played in open court. State ex rel. Bingaman v. Brennan, 1982-NMSC-059, 98 N.M. 109, 645 P.2d 982.
NM Stat § 30-12-10 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-10 - Interception of privileged or unauthorized communications.

A. No otherwise privileged wire or oral communication intercepted in accordance with, or in violation of, the provisions of this act [30-12-1 to 30-12-11 NMSA 1978] shall lose its privileged character. B. When an investigative or law enforcement officer, while engaged in intercepting wire or oral communications in the manner authorized in this act, intercepts wire or oral communications relating to offenses other than those specified in the order of authorization or approval, the contents thereof and evidence derived therefrom may be disclosed or used as provided in Subsection A of Section 30-12-9 NMSA 1978. Such contents and evidence derived therefrom may be used under Subsection B of Section 30-12-9 NMSA 1978 when authorized or approved by a judge of competent jurisdiction, when such judge finds on subsequent application that the contents were otherwise intercepted in accordance with the provisions of this act. Such application shall be made as soon as practicable. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-1.9, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 369, § 10. ANNOTATIONSDetermination of whether evidence subject to public inspection. — Any determination of whether items of evidence are properly subject to public inspection and copying must necessarily consider the likelihood of injury to parties not involved in the particular case at bar. State ex rel. Bingaman v. Brennan, 1982-NMSC-059, 98 N.M. 109, 645 P.2d 982. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Propriety of governmental eavesdropping on communications between accused and his attorney, 44 A.L.R.4th 841.
NM Stat § 30-12-13 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-13 - Defacing tombs.

Defacing tombs consists of either: A. intentionally defacing, breaking, destroying or removing any tomb, monument or gravestone erected to any deceased person or any memento, memorial or marker upon any place of burial of any human being or any ornamental plant, tree or shrub appertaining to the place of burial of any human being; or B. intentionally marking, defacing, injuring, destroying or removing any fence, post, rail or wall of any cemetery or graveyard or erected within any cemetery or graveyard or any marker, memorial or funerary object upon any place of burial of any human being. Whoever commits defacing a tomb is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment for a definite term less than one year or both. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-3, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 12-3; 1989, ch. 267, § 4. ANNOTATIONSThe 1989 amendment, effective June 16, 1989, substituted "memorial or marker upon any place of burial of any human being" for "any memorial" in Subsection A, added all of the language of Subsection B beginning with "or any marker", and substituted all of the language of the undesignated last paragraph beginning with "misdemeanor" for "petty misdemeanor". Multiple counts. — Damage to ten gravestones during a single criminal episode, with a single intent, constitutes only ten violations of the statute. Each gravestone represents distinct interests protected by the statute. Injury to each gravestone causes injury to the memory of a different person and is likely to cause emotional distress to a different collection of living persons. That circumstance is a strong indicator that destruction to each gravestone is a distinct offense. State v. Morro, 1999-NMCA-118, 127 N.M. 763, 987 P.2d 420. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 14 Am. Jur. 2d Cemeteries § 44. Liability for desecration of graves and tombstones, 77 A.L.R.4th 108. 14 C.J.S. Cemeteries §§ 34, 35.
NM Stat § 30-12-14 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses|Article 12 - Abuse of Privacy|Section 30-12-14 - Unlawful burial.

Unlawful burial consists of the using of any land or lands as a burial place of interment within fifty yards from either side of the bank or border of any stream, river or any body of water, by a person or persons, society of persons, order, corporation or corporations. Whoever commits unlawful burial is guilty of a misdemeanor. History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-12-4, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 12-4. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For burial of unclaimed dead, see 24-12-1 to 24-12-3 NMSA 1978. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 22A Am. Jur. 2d Dead Bodies § 46. Liability of cemetery in connection with conducting or supervising burial services, 42 A.L.R.4th 1059. 25A C.J.S. Dead Bodies § 10.