Appeals shall be allowed in all cases from the final judgments and decisions of the probate courts and other inferior courts as provided by law. (As amended November 8, 1966 and November 6, 2018.)

ANNOTATIONS

The 2017 amendment, which was proposed by S.J.R. No. 1 (Laws 2017), and adopted at the general election held on November 6, 2018, by a vote of 337,966 for and 243,100 against, provided the legislature with authority to enact statutory adjustments to processes for appealing court decisions from the probate courts and other inferior courts.

The 1966 amendment, which was proposed by H.J.R. No. 34, § 5 (Laws 1965), and adopted at the general election held on November 8, 1966, by a vote of 81,055 for and 26,317 against, substituted "other inferior courts" for "justices of the peace" after "probate courts and" and inserted a comma after "such appeals."

Cross references. — For appeals from metropolitan court, see 34-8A-6 NMSA 1978.

For appeals from magistrate courts, see 35-13-1 to 35-13-3 NMSA 1978.

For appeals from municipal court, see 35-15-7 NMSA 1978.

For appeals to district court, see 39-3-1 NMSA 1978.

For Probate Code, see Chapter 45 NMSA 1978.

For rules relating to appeals from magistrate courts, see Rules 2-705 and 6-703 NMRA.

For rules relating to appeals from metropolitan court, see Rules 3-706 and 7-703 NMRA.

For rules relating to appeals from municipal court, see Rule 8-703 NMRA.

Comparable provisions. — Utah Const., art. VIII, § 5.

Compiler's notes. — Under the Probate Code, Chapter 45 NMSA 1978, the probate courts have jurisdiction only over informal proceedings for probate of a will or appointment of a personal representative, which powers are shared concurrently with the district courts. See 45-1-302, 45-1-302.1 NMSA 1978. An interested person may file a petition under 45-3-401 NMSA 1978 to set aside or prevent informal probate of a will and commence a formal testacy proceeding, which proceeding may also involve appointment of a previously appointed, or a different, personal representative.

A municipality has a constitutional right to appeal an adverse final judgment or decision from a municipal to district court and the legislature may not abridge that right. City of Las Cruces v. Sanchez, 2007-NMSC-042, 142 N.M. 243, 164 P.3d 942.

District court reviews, de novo, the merits of pretrial motions on appeal. — Because the right of appeal from courts not of record is the right to a trial or hearing de novo in the district court, the district court must make an independent determination, de novo, of the merits of any pretrial motions raised by the parties on appeal. City of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia, 2013-NMSC-046, aff'g 2012-NMCA-079, 284 P.3d 1086.

Scope of district court review of pretrial motions on appeal. — When a district court reviews a lower court’s grant or denial of a dispositive pretrial motion, it does so independently. The district court does not consider whether the lower court abused it discretion; rather, it must consider the merits of the motion without regard to what the lower court decided. City of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia, 2013-NMSC-046, aff'g 2012-NMCA-079, 284 P.3d 1086.

In an appeal from the magistrate court, the district court's review is not for legal error. — Where defendant was charged in magistrate court with one misdemeanor traffic violation and three petty misdemeanor violations, and where, two days before trial, defendant requested copies of jury questionnaires from the magistrate court clerk, who informed defendant that the magistrate court required a copying fee for copies of the jury questionnaires, and where, the day before trial, defendant filed a verified application for free process for indigency, along with a motion to continue his trial, and where, the next morning, with the jury panel already in the courtroom for jury selection, the magistrate court orally denied defendant's motion to continue, and where, following a jury trial, defendant was convicted on all four counts, and where defendant appealed to the district court and filed a pretrial motion requesting appellate review of the magistrate court clerk's refusal to provide him free copies of the jury questionnaires and of the magistrate court's denial of his motion to continue, and where the district court denied defendant's pretrial motion and held a de novo jury trial, after which, defendant was again convicted on all four counts, and where, on appeal, defendant claimed that the district court should have remanded his case to the magistrate court for a new trial, the district court did not err in providing defendant with a trial de novo, because the district court's review in an appeal from the magistrate court is not for legal error. Defendant's claims of error can only be remedied by a trial de novo in the district court, and no rule permits the district court to remand or otherwise transfer jurisdiction back to the magistrate court for a new trial. State v. Lucero, 2022-NMCA-020, cert. denied.

District court independently determines the merits of pretrial motions on appeal. — Where defendant was arrested and charged in municipal court with DWI in violation of municipal ordinances; the municipal court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss all charges because the arresting officer, who was the only witness to observe defendant driving and who administered defendant’s breath alcohol test, did not appear at trial; and the municipality appealed the dismissal of the DWI charge to the district court, the district court was required to review, de novo, the merits of the municipal court’s pretrial ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss the DWI charge and independently determine the merits of the motion without regard to what the municipal court decided. City of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia, 2013-NMSC-046, aff'g 2012-NMCA-079, 284 P.3d 1086.

Appeals are subject to de novo review of all issues raised in the lower court. — Where defendant was charged with various traffic violations; when the municipality’s main witness, the arresting officer, failed to appear at trial, the municipal court dismissed the charges with prejudice; and the municipality appealed to district court, before the district court conducted a new trial on the charges against defendant, the district court was required to conduct de novo pretrial proceedings and review all preliminary matters raised by the parties, including whether it was appropriate for the municipal court to dismiss the charges against defendant. City of Farmington v. Pinon-Garcia, 2012-NMCA-079, 284 P.3d 1086, cert. granted, 2012-NMCERT-008.

State's constitutional right to appeal not codified. — The right of the state to appeal orders of suppression from the district court is created by statute as set forth in 39-3-3 NMSA 1978, which has been held not to be a statutory codification of the state's constitutional right to appeal. State v. Heinsen, 2004-NMCA-110, 136 N.M. 295, 97 P.3d 627, aff'd, 2005-NMSC-035, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040.

Appeals from metropolitan court judgments by aggrieved defendants. — The legislature did not violate this section in authorizing appeals from metropolitan court judgments by aggrieved defendants. State v. Ball, 1986-NMSC-030, 104 N.M. 176, 718 P.2d 686.

"Aggrieved" defendants. — A defendant who properly has entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere in metropolitan court is not an "aggrieved" party entitled to appeal to the district court for a trial de novo. State v. Ball, 1986-NMSC-030, 104 N.M. 176, 718 P.2d 686.

Appeal of justice court decision. — District courts had appellate jurisdiction over all cases originating in justice of peace courts (now magistrate courts). Lea Cnty. State Bank v. McCaskey Register Co., 1935-NMSC-069, 39 N.M. 454, 49 P.2d 577.

Rule restricting bases for state's appeals invalid. — Restrictive nature of Rule 7-703B NMRA in providing only two bases for appeal by the state, unconstitutionality of statute and insufficiency of complaint, limits the state's substantive right to appeal provided by the New Mexico constitution and is, therefore, invalid. Smith v. Love, 1984-NMSC-061, 101 N.M. 355, 683 P.2d 37.

State appeal from magistrate court decision. — Pursuant to this section, the state is permitted to appeal to the district court from a final judgment or decision rendered by the magistrate court. State v. Barber, 1989-NMCA-058, 108 N.M. 709, 778 P.2d 456, cert. denied, 108 N.M. 713, 778 P.2d 911.

Magistrate court orders suppressing evidence were not final orders in either an actual or practical sense. State v. Heinsen, 2004-NMCA-110, 136 N.M. 295, 97 P.3d 627, aff'd, 2005-NMSC-035, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040.

Provision only provides for the right to appeal final judgments from the metropolitan court. — Where defendant's bench trial on charges of driving under the influence and improper use of registration ended prematurely when the court declared a mistrial after the prosecutor revealed to the court the results of defendant's breath alcohol test prior to their admission into evidence, and where defendant subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that his right to be free from double jeopardy would be violated by a second trial because there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial and that mistrial was caused by prosecutorial misconduct, and where, following the denial of his motion to dismiss, defendant filed an application for interlocutory appeal to the New Mexico court of appeals, defendant's appeal was dismissed, because there is no constitutional authority that provides a defendant with the right to immediately appeal to the New Mexico court of appeals from metropolitan court orders denying motions to dismiss after mistrial. State v. Calderon, 2024-NMCA-005, cert. denied.

The state does not have the statutory authority or constitutional right to immediately appeal a magistrate court order suppressing evidence to the district court. State v. Heinsen, 2004-NMCA-110, 136 N.M. 295, 97 P.3d 627, aff'd, 2005-NMSC-035, 138 N.M. 441, 121 P.3d 1040.

Prosecution has no right to appeal the metropolitan court's suppression of evidence. State v. Giraudo, 1983-NMCA-042, 99 N.M. 634, 661 P.2d 1333.

Prosecution may appeal dismissal for failure to timely prosecute. — Since an order of dismissal for failure to timely prosecute is a final judgment, the prosecution may appeal it from the metropolitan court to the district court. State v. Giraudo, 1983-NMCA-042, 99 N.M. 634, 661 P.2d 1333.

Jurisdiction in inferior court. — Where unchallenged notice of appeal showed on its face that magistrate court originally had jurisdiction of case, district court could acquire jurisdiction even though transcript had not been filed. State v. McKee, 1974-NMCA-103, 86 N.M. 733, 527 P.2d 496, cert. denied, 86 N.M. 730, 527 P.2d 493.

Where justice court (now magistrate court) had no jurisdiction, there was nothing to try de novo on appeal to district court, and the case should be dismissed on proper motion. Geren v. Lawson, 1919-NMSC-048, 25 N.M. 415, 184 P. 216.

District court sitting in probate. — Order of district court sitting in probate could not be appealed to district court of general jurisdiction. Bell v. Kase, 1975-NMSC-016, 87 N.M. 358, 533 P.2d 591 (case decided under former probate law).

Reasonable procedural requirements for appeals may be enacted by the legislature and a failure to comply with them will defeat the relief sought by the appeal. Levers v. Houston, 1945-NMSC-017, 49 N.M. 169, 159 P.2d 761.

Until transcript was filed, district court could not proceed to trial on the merits, but it had jurisdiction of the cause to compel production of transcript so that it could proceed. Lea Cnty. State Bank v. McCaskey Register Co., 1935-NMSC-069, 39 N.M. 454, 49 P.2d 577.

Court rule valid. — A rule for the district court, providing that if the appellant shall not procure the cause to be timely docketed, the appellee may, on motion, have the cause docketed, and the appeal or certiorari dismissed, or, at his election, have his judgment affirmed, does not violate this section. Hignett v. Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry., 1928-NMSC-062, 33 N.M. 620, 274 P. 44.

Review by certiorari does not provide for trial de novo in the higher court, whereas both the constitution and statutes relate to "appeals" from justice courts and require that the trial be de novo. Lea Cnty. State Bank v. McCaskey Register Co., 1935-NMSC-069, 39 N.M. 454, 49 P.2d 577.

Appeal from metropolitan court governed by nature of offense. — Appeal from the metropolitan court is governed by the crime of which defendants are convicted rather than the type of trial; thus, defendant convicted of eluding an officer and reckless driving was entitled to a trial de novo, even though the trial was on the record. State v. Krause, 1998-NMCA-013, 124 N.M. 415, 951 P.2d 1076, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 146, 958 P.2d 104.

Review of metropolitan court's dismissal of criminal complaint. — The district court erred in applying an appellate standard of review to affirm the metropolitan court's dismissal of a criminal complaint because the district court was instead required to make an independent determination of whether the "forthwith" requirement in Rule 7-201D NMRA was complied with. State v. Hicks, 1986-NMCA-129, 105 N.M. 286, 731 P.2d 982, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 290, 731 P.2d 1334 (1987).

Failure to preserve issue. — Because defendant failed to show the district court that he preserved issue in metropolitan court, the district court was not required to make an independent determination of whether the metropolitan court six-month rule was violated. State v. Hoffman, 1992-NMCA-098, 114 N.M. 445, 839 P.2d 1333, cert. denied, 114 N.M. 520, 841 P.2d 1149.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 4 Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 77 et seq.

Plea of guilty in justice of peace court as precluding appeal, 42 A.L.R.2d 995.

Reviewability, on appeal from final judgment, of interlocutory order, as affected by fact that order was separately appealable, 79 A.L.R.2d 1352.

4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 14 et seq.; 5 C.J.S. Appeal and Error §§ 723, 724.