NM Stat § 34-1-4 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 34 - Court Structure and Administration|Article 1 - General Provisions|Section 34-1-4 - [Indirect criminal contempt proceedings; written publication out of court; jury trial; rules of procedure.]

In all proceedings in the district courts for indirect criminal contempt arising out of written publications made out of court, the contemnor shall have the right to a trial by jury. The rules of procedure applicable to other criminal proceedings shall apply to these proceedings. History: 1953 Comp., § 16-1-3.1, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 165, § 1. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For freedom of speech and press, see N.M. Const., art. II, § 17. For change of judge, see 38-3-9 NMSA 1978. For applicability of Rules of Evidence to contempt proceedings, see Paragraph B of Rule 11-1101 NMRA. Necessity for summary procedure is far greater in case of direct contempt than in the case of contempt outside the presence of the court. Summary measures may be the only effective means of defending the dignity of judicial tribunals and of insuring that they are able to accomplish the purpose of their existence. State ex rel. Bliss v. Greenwood, 1957-NMSC-071, 63 N.M. 156, 315 P.2d 223. Venue. — The service of a restraining order in Eddy county constituted a material element of the alleged offense of criminal contempt; thus, the venue properly laid in Eddy county. Norton v. Reese, 1966-NMSC-154, 76 N.M. 602, 417 P.2d 205. Information and bill of particulars read together. — An information charging a criminal contempt is a substitute for an indictment at common law. It serves the same purpose as the indictment in charging a criminal offense. The right of a defendant "to demand the nature and cause of the accusation" assured by N.M. Const., art. II, § 14, is preserved by the right to a bill of particulars. The information and bill of particulars are to be read together as a single instrument constituting the accusation. Norton v. Reese, 1966-NMSC-154, 76 N.M. 602, 417 P.2d 205 (decided under prior law). Affidavit disqualifying judge may be filed. — Where defendants are accused of an indirect criminal contempt arising out of a written publication, the presiding judge may be disqualified from further action in the case by the timely filing of the affidavit provided for by 38-3-9 NMSA 1978. Norton v. Reese, 1966-NMSC-154, 76 N.M. 602, 417 P.2d 205. Law reviews. — For article, " 'To Purify the Bar': A Constitutional Approach to Non-Professional Misconduct," see 5 Nat. Resources J. 299 (1965). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 17 Am. Jur. 2d Contempt §§ 17 et seq., 120 et seq., 203. Publication or broadcast, during course of trial, of matter prejudicial to criminal defendant as contempt, 33 A.L.R. 1116, 56 A.L.R. 1217. Necessity of affidavit or sworn statement as foundation for constructive contempt, 41 A.L.R.2d 1263. Disqualification of judge in proceedings to punish contempt against or involving himself or court of which he is a member, 64 A.L.R.2d 600, 37 A.L.R.4th 1004. Published article or broadcast as direct contempt of court, 69 A.L.R.2d 676. False or inaccurate report of judicial proceedings as contempt, 99 A.L.R.2d 440. Release of information concerning forthcoming or pending trial as ground for contempt proceedings or other disciplinary measures against member of the bar, 11 A.L.R.3d 1104. Attack on judiciary as a whole as indirect contempt, 40 A.L.R.3d 1204. Violation of state court order by one other than party as contempt, 7 A.L.R.4th 893. Validity and construction of state court's order precluding publicity or comment about pending civil case by counsel, parties, or witnesses, 56 A.L.R.4th 1214. 17 C.J.S. Contempt §§ 4, 30.