N.M. Stat. Ann. § 30-3A-3
A. Stalking consists of knowingly pursuing a pattern of conduct, without lawful authority, directed at a specific individual when the person intends that the pattern of conduct would place the individual in reasonable apprehension of death, bodily harm, sexual assault, confinement or restraint of the individual or another individual.
B. As used in this section:
(2) "pattern of conduct" means two or more acts, on more than one occasion, in which the alleged stalker by any action, method, device or means, directly, indirectly or through third parties, follows, monitors, surveils, threatens or communicates to or about a person.
C. Whoever commits stalking is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon a second or subsequent conviction, the offender is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
D. In addition to any punishment provided pursuant to the provisions of this section, the court shall order a person convicted of stalking to participate in and complete a program of professional counseling at the person's own expense or a domestic violence offender treatment or intervention program.
History: 1978 Comp., § 30-3A-3, enacted by Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 3; 2009, ch. 21, § 2.
Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 7, repealed 30-3A-3 NMSA 1978, as amended by Laws 1995, ch. 23, § 1, and Laws 1997, ch. 10, § 3, enacted a new section, effective July 1, 1997.
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, deleted former Subsections A and B and inserted new Subsections A and B; and in Subsection D, added the domestic violence offender treatment or intervention program.
Evidence sufficient. — Evidence that defendant repeatedly trespassed onto victim's property and that defendant was the party who looked into victim's windows and followed her was sufficient to support convictions for stalking, harassment and criminal trespass. State v. Duran, 1998-NMCA-153, 126 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 533, 972 P.2d 352, overruled on other grounds, State v. Laguna, 1999-NMCA-152, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.
Sufficient evidence of stalking. — Where defendant was convicted of one count of use of telephone to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend and one count of stalking for sending a series of threatening text messages to his ex-girlfriend over a two-day period, there was sufficient evidence to support his conviction where the state presented evidence that defendant authored numerous threatening text messages, and considering the contents of the text messages and the context in which they were received, the specific details that correlated to defendant's encounters with the victim, and victim's additional testimony regarding defendant's style of messaging, there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude that defendant was the author of the messages. State v. Valerio, 2026-NMCA-010, cert. granted.
Double jeopardy. — When the defendant had been convicted of contempt, a misdemeanor, for violating a domestic violence protective order and sentenced to jail time, double jeopardy did not bar prosecution of the defendant for the offenses of stalking and harassment stemming from the same conduct that gave rise to the contempt adjudication. State v. Gonzales, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d 185, cert. denied, 123 N.M. 229, 938 P.2d 204.
Where the state relies on identical acts of an accused involving the same course of conduct to prove both the offenses of harassment and of stalking, double jeopardy provisions preclude multiple punishment, and the offense of harassment is subsumed into the offense of misdemeanor stalking. State v. Duran, 1998-NMCA-153, 126 N.M. 60, 966 P.2d 768, cert. denied, 126 N.M. 533, 972 P.2d 352, overruled on other grounds, State v. Laguna, 1999-NMCA-152, 128 N.M. 345, 992 P.2d 896, cert. denied, 128 N.M. 149, 990 P.2d 823.