2018 New Mexico Statutes
Chapter 30 - Criminal Offenses
Article 19 - Gambling
Section 30-19-8 - Gambling and gambling houses as public nuisance.
Except as otherwise permitted or excepted under this article [30-19-1 through 30-19-15 NMSA 1978], any gambling device or gambling place is a public nuisance per se.
The attorney general, any district attorney or any citizen of this state may institute an injunction proceeding to have such public nuisance abated. In the event such injunction is issued on behalf of any citizen of this state it shall not be necessary in such proceeding to show that he is personally injured by the act complained of.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-19-8, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 19-8.
Cross references. — For provision defining a public nuisance, see 30-8-1 NMSA 1978.
For abatement of a public nuisance, see 30-8-8 NMSA 1978.
Former law not exclusive. — Laws 1921, ch. 86, § 9 (40-22-9, 1953 Comp.), providing for closing of gaming-house, did not impair or modify the common-law powers of courts to abate public nuisances summarily inasmuch as it was a permissive statute only. State v. Johnson, 1948-NMSC-033, 52 N.M. 229, 195 P.2d 1017 (decided under prior law).
Suit to enjoin pari-mutuel betting not maintainable. — Plaintiffs could not seek injunctive relief through the general gambling statute, 40-22-6, 1953 Comp., to enjoin defendant from using certain premises for pari-mutuel betting on horse racing, until they could have shown that the pari-mutuel statute, 60-1-10 NMSA 1978, was unconstitutional. Patton v. Fortuna Corp., 1960-NMSC-136, 68 N.M. 40, 357 P.2d 1090.
Destruction of equipment. — Under Laws 1921, ch. 86, § 9 (former 40-22-9, 1953 Comp.), any gaming-house, gambling table, banking game, gaming paraphernalia or gaming device or equipment of any sort was a public nuisance and the equipment could be ordered destroyed upon hearing for an injunction in district court. State v. Las Cruces Elks Club, 1950-NMSC-013, 54 N.M. 137, 215 P.2d 821.
Contempt charge. — Injunction against use of certain premises for gaming was not ineffectual as a basis for contempt charge because of failure of court to order premises closed. Contempt was sufficiently charged by alleging injunction, and subsequent use of premises. State v. Dunn, 1932-NMSC-047, 36 N.M. 258, 13 P.2d 557.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 38 Am. Jur. 2d Gambling § 16.
Private residence: gambling in private residence as prohibited or permitted by anti-gambling laws, 27 A.L.R.3d 1074.
66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 48.
