The judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate when sitting as a court of impeachment, a supreme court, a court of appeals, district courts; probate courts, magistrate courts and such other courts inferior to the district courts as may be established by law from time to time in any district, county or municipality of the state. (As amended September 28, 1965, and November 8, 1966.)

ANNOTATIONS

The 1966 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. No. 34, § 1 (Laws 1965) and adopted at a general election held on November 8, 1966, with a vote of 81,055 for and 26,317 against, substituted "magistrate courts" for "justices of the peace" after "probate courts," inserted "district," preceding "county or municipality" and deleted "including juvenile courts" at the end of the section.

The 1965 amendment, which was proposed by S.J.R. No. 5, § 1 (Laws 1965) and adopted at a special election held on September 28, 1965, with a vote of 31,582 for and 18,477 against, added the words "a court of appeals" after "a supreme court."

Cross references. — For impeachment by the senate, see N.M. Const., art. IV, §§ 35, 36.

For supreme court, see N.M. Const., art. VI, §§ 2 to 11 and 34-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

For district courts, see N.M. Const., art. VI, §§ 12 to 22 and 34-6-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

For provisions relating to probate courts and jurisdiction thereof, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 23 , 34-7-1 NMSA 1978 and 45-1-302 NMSA 1978.

For magistrate courts, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 26 and 35-1-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

For court of appeals, see N.M. Const., art. VI, § 29 and 34-5-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.

For provision establishing childrens' courts as division of district courts, see 32A-1-5 NMSA 1978.

For municipal courts, see 35-14-1 NMSA 1978.

For metropolitan courts, see 34-8A-1 NMSA 1978.

Comparable provisions. — Idaho Const., art. V, § 2.

Iowa Const., art. V, § 1.

Montana Const., art. VII, § 1.

Utah Const., art. VIII, § 1.

Wyoming Const., art. V, § 1.

Witness use immunity. — The grant of witness use immunity is a power that the supreme court defines in the exercise of its inherent judicial authority. State v. Belanger, 2009-NMSC-025, 146 N.M. 357, 210 P.3d 783, rev’g 2007-NMCA-143, 142 N.M. 751, 170 P.3d 530, overruling State v. Cheadle, 1983-NMSC-093, 101 N.M. 282, 681 P.2d 708, State v. Baca, 1997-NMSC-045, 124 N.M. 55, 946 P.2d 1066 and State v. Sanchez, 1982-NMCA-105, 98 N.M. 428, 649 P.2d 496.

Where the prosecution of the defendant resulted in two mistrials that were caused by the state’s witnesses and where a police officer, who was a key witness for both the state and the defendant, failed to appear for a third scheduled trial, because the state failed to subpoena him after representing to the court and to the defendant that it would do so, the court properly exercised its inherent power to control its docket when the court dismissed the case. State v. Candelaria, 2008-NMCA-120, 144 N.M. 797, 192 P.3d 792.

The court has authority to stay the prosecution of the death penalty in a capital case where indigent defendants are deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because counsel for the defendants are inadequately compensated. State v. Young, 2007-NMSC-058, 143 N.M. 1, 172 P.3d 138.

Creation of courts limited. — The framers of the state constitution in this section limited the creation of courts to those named therein, and "such courts inferior to the district courts as may be established by law from time to time in any county or municipality of the state, including juvenile courts". State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Prods. Co. v. Mechem, 1957-NMSC-075, 63 N.M. 250, 316 P.2d 1069, overruled on other grounds by Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 1986-NMSC-075, 104 N.M. 751, 726 P.2d 1381.

Establishment of inferior courts to be by general law. — Declaration in this section that inferior courts not enumerated might be established by law meant they might be established by general legislative enactments; it did not permit a city-manager city to establish a police court, provide for the election of a police magistrate and confer jurisdiction to decide cases involving violations of city ordinances. Stout v. City of Clovis, 1932-NMSC-073, 37 N.M. 30, 16 P.2d 936.

Inherent power in absence of express authority. – This section grants courts an inherent power to exercise authority essential to their judicial function and management of their caseload, even absent express statutory authority or court rule. State v. Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, 134 N.M. 744, 82 P.3d 554, cert. denied, 2003-NMCERT-003, 135 N.M. 51, 84 P.3d 668.

As a constitutional matter, the district court has a duty to conduct an independent review to ensure that protected speech is not criminalized; thus, a court has a duty to make a threshold determination of whether material that is alleged to be obscene is the type of hard core pornography that is unprotected speech. State v. Rendleman, 2003-NMCA-150, 134 N.M. 744, 82 P.3d 554, cert. denied, 2003-NMCERT-003, 135 N.M. 51, 84 P.3d 668.

Juvenile court as division of district court. — The juvenile court provided for in the 1955 Juvenile Code (former Section 13-8-19, 1953 Comp. et seq) was part and parcel of the district court and not an inferior court, and it was not violative of this section. Peyton v. Nord, 1968-NMSC-027, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716.

Appeals from juvenile court. — Legislature could not validly provide for direct appeal from juvenile court to supreme court, the juvenile court being a court inferior to the district court under this section (as it read prior to amendment). State v. Eychaner, 1937-NMSC-082, 41 N.M. 677, 73 P.2d 805.

Controversies between individuals for courts. — The right to determine controversies between individual litigants stems from the state constitution and this power rests alone with the courts. State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Prods. Co. v. Mechem, 1957-NMSC-075, 63 N.M. 250, 316 P.2d 1069, overruled by Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 1986-NMSC-075, 104 N.M. 751, 726 P.2d 1381.

Presumption of retroactivity for new rules imposed by judicial decision in civil cases. — The supreme court has the power to apply a new rule prospectively, whether the rule is derived from overruling a past precedent or fashioning a new precedent, even though the decision announcing the rule has already been applied retroactively to the conduct of the litigants in the case in which the rule was announced. However, because of the desirability of treating similarly situated parties alike, a presumption of retroactivity for a new rule imposed by a judicial decision in a civil case is adopted. Beavers v. Johnson Controls World Servs., Inc., 1994-NMSC-094, 118 N.M. 391, 881 P.2d 1376, rev'g 1993-NMCA-088, 116 N.M. 29, 859 P.2d 497.

Exercise of judicial powers by executive and legislature unconstitutional. — Any statutory scheme under which the executive and legislative branches of a municipal government can control or exercise the inherent powers of the judiciary would be violative of the state constitution. Mowrer v. Rusk, 1980-NMSC-113, 95 N.M. 48, 618 P.2d 886.

Legislature may confer "quasi-judicial" power on administrative boards for the protection of the rights and interests of the public in general, the orders of which are not to be overruled if supported by substantial evidence, but nowhere does this power extend to a determination of rights and liabilities between individuals. State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Prods. Co. v. Mechem, 1957-NMSC-075, 63 N.M. 250, 316 P.2d 1069, overruled by Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 1986-NMSC-075, 104 N.M. 751, 726 P.2d 1381.

Unlawful delegation of judicial power. — The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1957 (Laws 1957, ch. 246, §§ 1 through 96, former 59-10-36 through 59-10-125, 1953 Comp.) was unconstitutional in that it constituted an unlawful delegation of judicial power to the commission in violation of N.M. Const., art. III, § 1 and this section. State ex rel. Hovey Concrete Prods. Co. v. Mechem, 1957-NMSC-075, 63 N.M. 250, 316 P.2d 1069, overruled by Wylie Corp. v. Mowrer, 1986-NMSC-075, 104 N.M. 751, 726 P.2d 1381.

Compulsory arbitration. — The "principle of check", which entails courts retaining power to make enforceable, binding judgments through review of agency determinations, requires that courts have an opportunity to review decisions of arbitrators in statutorily compelled arbitration such as required by 22-10-17.1 NMSA 1978 (now 22-10A-28 NMSA 1978). Board of Educ. v. Harrell, 1994-NMSC-096, 118 N.M. 470, 882 P.2d 511.

Reclamation contract infringing on court's power. — Provision in reclamation contract between the United States and conservancy district that if any assessment be judicially determined to be void, or the district be enjoined from making or collecting any assessment on such land, then such tract or water user should have no right to the benefits of the contract or the water made available, was illegal, as it purported to permit the secretary of the interior to override the court's decision and enforce his own mandate whether legal or illegal. Middle Rio Grande Water User's Ass'n v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1953-NMSC-035, 57 N.M. 287, 258 P.2d 391.

Power of disbarment. — Portion of former 36-2-7 NMSA 1978 which purported to confer judicial power of suspension and disbarment on board of commissioners, was void insofar as it attempted to create an inferior tribunal with such judicial powers. In re Gibson, 1931-NMSC-042, 35 N.M. 550, 4 P.2d 643, abrogated, In re Bristol, 2006-NMSC-041, 140 N.M. 317, 142 P.3d 905.

Board of loan commissioners. — Laws 1912, ch. 16, investing board of loan commissioners with power to ascertain and determine territorial and county debts and liabilities which were assumed by state under the constitution, did not confer judicial power upon the board. State v. Kelly, 1921-NMSC-073, 27 N.M. 412, 202 P. 524.

Courts are not constituted as reviewing authority over other departments of the state or as guardian of the constitution. State ex rel. Gomez v. Campbell, 1965-NMSC-025, 75 N.M. 86, 400 P.2d 956.

Review of other departments limited. — Power of the courts is a judicial power, to hear and determine causes of action, and they cannot generally review or interfere with the acts of the legislative or executive departments, being empowered to enforce the supremacy of the constitution only when legislative enactments or executive proceedings are plainly violative thereof, and then only upon suit by one directly and adversely affected thereby. State ex rel. Gomez v. Campbell, 1965-NMSC-025, 75 N.M. 86, 400 P.2d 956.

Courts not to consider wisdom of legislation. — It is not part of the duty of the courts to inquire into the wisdom, the policy or the justness of an act of the legislature; the court's duty is to ascertain and declare the intention of the legislature, and to give effect to the legislative will as expressed in the laws. Raton Pub. Serv. Co. v. Hobbes, 1966-NMSC-150, 76 N.M. 535, 417 P.2d 32.

Justices of the peace. — Under this section prior to amendment, a justice of the peace (now magistrate court) was a court, when publicly administering justice delegated to him by law. State v. Lazarovich, 1921-NMSC-071, 27 N.M. 282, 200 P. 422.

Conservancy districts. — Laws 1927, ch. 45 (73-14-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.), establishing conservancy districts, does not create a new court in violation of this section. Gutierrez v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1929-NMSC-071, 34 N.M. 346, 282 P. 1, 70 A.L.R. 1261, cert. denied, 280 U.S. 610, 50 S. Ct. 158, 74 L. Ed. 653 (1930).

Indian's rights to invoke jurisdiction of courts. — An Indian has the same rights as are accorded to any other person to invoke the jurisdiction of the state courts to protect his legal rights in matters not affecting either the federal government or tribal relations. Paiz v. Hughes, 1966-NMSC-151, 76 N.M. 562, 417 P.2d 51.

Courts of limited jurisdiction. — N.M. Const., art. VI, § 13, does not preclude the legislature from exercising the constitutional authority under this section and N.M. Const., art. VI, § 26, to grant injunctive authority to courts of limited jurisdiction. Martinez v. Sedillo, 2005-NMCA-029, 137 N.M. 103, 107 P.3d 543.

Law reviews. — For article, "Separation of Powers and the Judicial Rule-Making Power in New Mexico: The Need for Prudential Restraints," see 15 N.M. L. Rev. 407 (1985).

For article, "State ex rel. New Mexico Judicial Standards Commission v. Espinosa: Can Judicial Integrity Survive Executive Control?", see 34 N.M. L. Rev. 489 (2004).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 16 Am. Jur. 2d Constitutional Law §§ 306 to 317, 334; 20 Am. Jur. 2d Courts § 1 et seq.

Mob or riot, statute creating municipal liability for, as a usurpation of judicial powers, 26 A.L.R.3d 1142.

Construction and Application of Political Question Doctrine by State Courts, 9 A.L.R. 6th 177.

16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law §§ 169 to 214; 21 C.J.S. Courts §§ 93, 94; 81A C.J.S. States §§ 20 to 22.