reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
NM Stat § 38-5-12 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 5 - Drawing and Empaneling Jurors|Section 38-5-12 - Petit jury panels; number to be qualified; period of service; time for summoning.

A. The judge shall determine the number of jurors to be summoned for service, the date and time for the appearance of jurors for qualification, the number of jurors to be qualified to provide panels of jurors for trial service and the size of trial jury panels. Procedures such as the use of alternate jury panels should be established where appropriate to lessen the burden of jury service on persons retained on petit jury panels. Jurors may be drawn, summoned and qualified by the judge at any time to supplement jury panels requiring replacement or augmentation. Petit jury panels may be qualified and may serve as the trial needs of the court require without regard to court terms. B. The supreme court shall establish, by rule, the appropriate length of jury terms. The court shall consider the number of trials held, the availability of jurors and the administrative and financial impact. History: 1953 Comp., § 19-1-12, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 222, § 12; 1970, ch. 40, § 2; 1971, ch. 136, § 1; 1977, ch. 382, § 1; 1979, ch. 173, § 2; 2005, ch. 107, § 8. ANNOTATIONSThe 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, eliminated in Subsection A the requirement that judges determine the length of time jurors are retained for service, the limitation of time a juror may be required to service on a jury panel, and the exemption for jury service of persons who have service on a jury within the preceding thirty-six months; and added a new Subsection B to require the supreme court to establish the length of jury terms. Section authorizes district judge, with time limitations, to determine the length of time jurors are retained for service. State v. Gonzales, 1971-NMCA-007, 82 N.M. 388, 482 P.2d 252, cert. denied, 82 N.M. 377, 482 P.2d 241 (decided under prior law). Term of service of jurors is to be determined by the district judge and may differ from the term of the court. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-52 (rendered under prior law). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Jury § 186 et seq. Irregularity in drawing names for a jury panel as ground of complaint by a defendant in a criminal prosecution, 92 A.L.R. 1109. Petit jury: prior service on grand jury which considered indictment against accused as disqualification for service on petit jury, 24 A.L.R.3d 1236. Validity of statutory classifications based on population - jury selection statutes, 97 A.L.R.3d 434. Excusing, on account of public, charitable, or educational employment, one qualified and not specifically exempted as juror in state criminal case as ground of complaint by accused, 99 A.L.R.3d 1261. 50 C.J.S. Juries § 164 et seq.
NM Stat § 38-5-13 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 5 - Drawing and Empaneling Jurors|Section 38-5-13 - Drawing and qualifying trial jury.

The district court of each county shall maintain a list of the names of the jurors duly empaneled and present for the trial of a case. The judge shall cause the names to be randomly selected until sufficient names have been drawn to provide the number of jurors required for the trial. The name and number of each juror shall be announced. Twelve or six jurors shall compose a petit jury in the district courts for the trial of civil causes. Twelve jurors shall compose a petit jury in criminal and children's court cases. Magistrate and metropolitan jury court selection shall be conducted in accordance with supreme court rules. History: 1953 Comp., § 19-1-13, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 222, § 13; 1991, ch. 71, § 5; 2005, ch. 107, § 9. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For number of jurors required to return verdict in civil cases, see 38-5-17 NMSA 1978 and Rules 1-038 and 1-048 NMRA. For selection of jurors in criminal cases generally, see Rule 5-605 NMRA. For requirement of unanimous verdict in criminal cases, see Rule 5-611 NMRA. The 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, eliminated all former requirements concerning the jury lot slip container and lot slips, and provided that names shall be randomly selected. The 1991 amendment, effective April 1, 1991, added "Jury lot slip container" at the beginning of the catchline; added Subsection A; designated the formerly undesignated provision as Subsection B; and, in Subsection B, deleted "before each name is drawn" following "rotated" in the third sentence, inserted "or six" following "Twelve" and deleted "or criminal" following "civil" in the fifth sentence, added the last three sentences; and made minor stylistic changes throughout the subsection. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 50 C.J.S. Juries §§ 192 to 198.
NM Stat § 38-5-15 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 5 - Drawing and Empaneling Jurors|Section 38-5-15 - Mileage and compensation for jurors.

Persons summoned for jury service and jurors shall be reimbursed for travel in excess of forty miles round trip from their place of actual residence to the courthouse when their attendance is ordered at the rate allowed public officers and employees per mile of necessary travel. Persons summoned for jury service and jurors shall be compensated for their time in attendance and service at the highest prevailing state minimum wage rate. History: 1953 Comp., § 19-1-15, enacted by Laws 1969, ch. 222, § 15; 1970, ch. 40, § 3; 1976 (S.S.), ch. 16, § 1; 1979, ch. 285, § 1; 1991, ch. 71, § 7; 2017, ch. 61, § 2. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For Per Diem and Mileage Act, see 10-8-1 NMSA 1978. For provision of meals and accommodations for jurors, see 34-6-41 NMSA 1978. The 2017 amendment, effective June 16, 2017, reduced mileage reimbursement for certain jurors, allowing a juror to be reimbursed for mileage only if the juror travels more than forty miles round trip from the juror's residence to the courthouse; and after "reimbursed for travel", added "in excess of forty miles round trip". The 1991 amendment, effective April 1, 1991, deleted "and jury commissioners" following "jurors" in the catchline; deleted "Jury commissioners" at the beginning of the first and second sentences; and made related stylistic changes. When jurors are kept together a night during the course of a trial, they should be paid for this time. 1969 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 69-101. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Jury § 99. 50 C.J.S. Juries § 207.
NM Stat § 38-5-18 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 5 - Drawing and Empaneling Jurors|Section 38-5-18 - Employer prohibited from penalizing employee for jury service.

A. An employer shall not deprive an employee of employment or threaten or otherwise coerce the employee because the employee receives a summons for jury service, responds to the summons, serves as a juror or attends court for prospective jury service. B. An employer shall not require or request an employee to use annual, vacation or sick leave for time spent responding to a summons for jury service, participating in the jury selection process or serving on a jury. Nothing in this subsection requires an employer to provide annual, vacation or sick leave to employees who are not otherwise entitled to those benefits under company policies. History: Laws 1979, ch. 47, § 1; 2005, ch. 107, § 10. ANNOTATIONSThe 2005 amendment, effective July 1, 2005, added Subsection B to prohibit employers from requiring or requesting that employees use annual, vacation or sick time for jury service, and provided that employers are not required to grant leave time to employees who are not otherwise entitled to those benefits. Law reviews. — For article, "Defending the Abusively Discharged Employee: In Search of a Judicial Solution," see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 711 (1982).
NM Stat § 38-5-19 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 5 - Drawing and Empaneling Jurors|Section 38-5-19 - Penalty.

An employer, either individually or through his agent, who violates Section 1 [38-5-18 NMSA 1978] of this act is guilty of a petty misdemeanor. History: Laws 1979, ch. 47, § 2.
NM Stat § 38-6-1 to 38-6-3 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6 - Witnesses and Their Competency|Section 38-6-1 to 38-6-3 - Repealed.

ANNOTATIONSRepeals. — Laws 1981, ch. 115, § 1, repealed 38-6-1 through 38-6-3 NMSA 1978, relating to the issuance and service of subpoenas against witnesses, effective March 21, 1981.
NM Stat § 38-6-5 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6 - Witnesses and Their Competency|Section 38-6-5 - Repealed.

ANNOTATIONSRepeals. — Laws 1981, ch. 115, § 1, repealed 38-6-5 NMSA 1978, relating to mileage and per diem expenses for witnesses and fixing trial dates for criminal cases, effective March 21, 1981.
NM Stat § 38-6A-1 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-1 - Short title.

This act [38-6A-1 to 38-6A-9 NMSA 1978] may be cited as the "Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act". History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 1. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-3 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-3 - Applicability.

A. The Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act applies to the testimony of a child witness in a criminal or noncriminal proceeding. However, the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act does not preclude, in a criminal or noncriminal proceeding, any other procedure permitted by law: (1) for a child witness to testify by an alternative method, however denominated; or (2) for protecting the interests of or reducing mental or emotional harm to a child witness. B. The supreme court may adopt rules of procedure and evidence to implement the provisions of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 3. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-4 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-4 - Hearing whether to allow testimony by alternative method.

A. The presiding officer in a criminal or noncriminal proceeding may order a hearing to determine whether to allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method. The presiding officer, for good cause shown, shall order the hearing upon motion of a party, a child witness or an individual determined by the presiding officer to have sufficient standing to act on behalf of the child. B. A hearing to determine whether to allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method shall be conducted on the record after reasonable notice to all parties, to any nonparty movant and to any other person the presiding officer specifies. The child's presence is not required at the hearing unless ordered by the presiding officer. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 4. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-5 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-5 - Standards for determining whether a child witness may testify by alternative method.

A. In a criminal proceeding, the presiding officer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method in the following situations: (1) the child may testify otherwise than in an open forum in the presence and full view of the finder of fact upon a showing that the child witness may be unable to testify without suffering unreasonable and unnecessary mental or emotional harm; and (2) the child may testify other than face-to-face with the defendant if the presiding officer makes specific findings that the child witness would be unable to testify face-to-face with the defendant without suffering unreasonable and unnecessary mental or emotional harm. B. In a noncriminal proceeding, the presiding officer may allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method if the presiding officer finds that allowing the child to testify by an alternative method is necessary to serve the best interests of the child or enable the child to communicate with the finder of fact. In making this finding, the presiding officer shall consider: (1) the nature of the proceeding; (2) the age and maturity of the child; (3) the relationship of the child to the parties in the proceeding; (4) the nature and degree of mental or emotional harm that the child may suffer in testifying; and (5) any other relevant factor. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 5. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-6 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-6 - Factors for determining whether to permit alternative method.

If the presiding officer determines that a standard pursuant to Section 5 [38-6A-5 NMSA 1978] of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act has been met, the presiding officer shall determine whether to allow a child witness to testify by an alternative method and in doing so shall consider: A. alternative methods reasonably available for protecting the interests of or reducing mental or emotional harm to the child; B. available means for protecting the interests of or reducing mental or emotional harm to the child without resort to an alternative method; C. the nature of the case; D. the relative rights of the parties; E. the importance of the proposed testimony of the child; F. the nature and degree of mental or emotional harm that the child may suffer if an alternative method is not used; and G. any other relevant factor. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 6. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-7 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-7 - Order regarding testimony by alternative method.

A. An order allowing or disallowing a child witness to testify by an alternative method shall state the findings of fact and conclusions of law that support the presiding officer's determination. B. An order allowing a child witness to testify by an alternative method shall: (1) state the method by which the child is to testify; (2) list any individual or category of individuals allowed to be in, or required to be excluded from, the presence of the child during the testimony; (3) state any special conditions necessary to facilitate a party's right to examine or cross-examine the child; (4) state any condition or limitation upon the participation of individuals present during the testimony of the child; and (5) state any other condition necessary for taking or presenting the testimony. C. The alternative method ordered by the presiding officer shall be no more restrictive of the rights of the parties than is necessary under the circumstances to serve the purposes of the order and shall be subject to the other provisions of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 7. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-8 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-8 - Right of party to examine child witness.

An alternative method ordered by the presiding officer shall permit a full and fair opportunity for examination or cross-examination of the child witness by each party, subject to such protection of the child witness as the presiding officer deems necessary. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 8. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-6A-9 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 6A - Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures|Section 38-6A-9 - Uniformity of application and construction.

In applying and construing the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act, consideration shall be given to the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact it. History: Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 9. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 11 made the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act effective July 1, 2012. Severability. — Laws 2011, ch. 98, § 10 provided that if any part or application of the Uniform Child Witness Protective Measures Act was held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
NM Stat § 38-7-1 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 7 - Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence|Section 38-7-1 - Verified accounts; instruments in writing; denial under oath.

Except as provided in the Uniform Commercial Code [Chapter 55 NMSA 1978], accounts duly verified by the oath of the party claiming the same, or his agent, and promissory notes and other instruments in writing, not barred by law, are sufficient evidence in any suit to enable the plaintiff to recover judgment for the amount thereof, unless the defendant or his agent denies the same under oath. History: Laws 1880, ch. 5, § 18; C.L. 1884, § 1878; C.L. 1897, § 2931; Code 1915, § 2176; C.S. 1929, § 45-603; 1941 Comp., § 20-207; 1953 Comp., § 20-2-7; Laws 1961, ch. 96, § 11-103. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For admissibility of evidence in civil actions in district courts, see Rule 11-101 NMRA et seq. Section held unconstitutional. — Because this section prescribes an evidentiary rule of practice or procedure, an area constitutionally within the power of the supreme court and not the legislature, this section is unconstitutional. Miller & Assocs., Ltd. v. Rainwater, 1985-NMSC-001, 102 N.M. 170, 692 P.2d 1319. Law reviews. — For annual survey of New Mexico commercial law, see 16 N.M.L. Rev. 1 (1986). Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 1 Am. Jur. 2d Accounts and Accounting § 12 et seq. Accounts receivable: sufficiency of evidence as to items included in "accounts receivable" under contract selling, assigning, pledging, or reserving such items, 41 A.L.R.2d 1395. 1 C.J.S. Account, Action on §§ 33 to 43.
NM Stat § 38-7-2 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 38 - Trials|Article 7 - Admissibility and Sufficiency of Evidence|Section 38-7-2 - [Consideration imported by written contract.]

Every contract in writing hereafter made shall import a consideration in the same manner and as fully as sealed instruments have heretofore done. History: Laws 1901, ch. 62, § 12; Code 1915, § 2181; C.S. 1929, § 45-608; 1941 Comp., § 20-208; 1953 Comp., § 20-2-8. ANNOTATIONSBracketed material. — The bracketed material was inserted by the compiler and is not part of the law. Under this section, it is not necessary, in a suit upon a written contract, to allege a consideration. Flores v. Baca, 1919-NMSC-053, 25 N.M. 424, 184 P. 532. Express allegation of mortgagor's ownership. — In foreclosure complaint, an express allegation of mortgagor's ownership of mortgaged premises was unnecessary; it was implied. Franklin v. Harper, 1926-NMSC-059, 32 N.M. 108, 252 P. 170; Flores v. Baca, 1919-NMSC-053, 25 N.M. 424, 184 P. 532. Option agreement. — Where option agreement was alleged to be in writing it was sufficient to withstand the attack of a motion to dismiss for failure to allege consideration. Rubenstein v. Weil, 1965-NMSC-137, 75 N.M. 562, 408 P.2d 140. Contract which is not entirely in writing is regarded as an oral or verbal contract, and a complaint in a suit upon such a contract, which fails to allege a consideration, is fatally defective. Flores v. Baca, 1919-NMSC-053, 25 N.M. 424, 184 P. 532. Under this section, a draft imports a consideration. First Nat'l Bank v. Home Ins. Co., 1911-NMSC-010, 16 N.M. 66, 113 P. 815. "Import a consideration" construed. — The language "import a consideration," as used in this section, means that in the absence of evidence on the point, it will be presumed that there was a sufficient consideration and the burden of proof on the question is on the party denying the existence of consideration. Burt v. Horn, 1982-NMCA-037, 97 N.M. 515, 641 P.2d 546. A deed, being merely a specialized form of contract, consideration is imported in the same manner and as fully as sealed instruments. Rael v. Cisneros, 1971-NMSC-073, 82 N.M. 705, 487 P.2d 133. Adjustment of disputes is sufficient consideration. — If disputes have arisen under a contract, and the parties thereto enter into a new contract as a means of adjusting such disputes, such adjustment of disputes is a sufficient consideration. Burt v. Horn, 1982-NMCA-037, 97 N.M. 515, 641 P.2d 546. Instrument bearing evidence of lack of consideration destroys presumption. — Where the instrument upon its face bears the evidence of its infirmity and lack of consideration, it without more furnishes the proof which destroys the presumption of consideration. Burt v. Horn, 1982-NMCA-037, 97 N.M. 515, 641 P.2d 546. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 17A Am. Jur. 2d Contracts § 121; 68 Am. Jur. 2d Seals § 11. 17 C.J.S. Contracts §§ 15, 72.