A magistrate has jurisdiction to punish for contempt only for disorderly behavior or breach of the peace tending to interrupt or disturb a judicial proceeding in progress before the magistrate or for disobedience of any lawful order or process of his court. No person shall be punished for contempt of the magistrate court until given an opportunity to be heard in his defense. Any person convicted under this section may appeal to the district court in the same manner as in other criminal actions in the magistrate court.
History: 1953 Comp., § 36-3-9, enacted by Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 54; 1975, ch. 242, § 3; 1991, ch. 82, § 2.
ANNOTATIONSRepeals. — Laws 1968, ch. 62, § 171, repealed former 36-3-9, 1953 Comp., relating to officers' fees for carrying removed justice's papers to another justice, effective January 1, 1969.
Cross references. — For procedures governing appeals to the district court from magistrate courts in trial de novo cases, see Rule 1-072 NMRA.
For contempt, see Rules 2-110 and 2-502E NMRA.
For applicability of Rules of Evidence to contempt proceedings, see Rule 11-1101 NMRA.
The 1991 amendment, effective June 14, 1991, deleted the former third sentence which read "After hearing, any person found guilty of contempt shall be punished by a fine not exceeding twenty-five dollars ($25.00) or by imprisonment for not more than three days, or both."
Six-day contempt sentence. — Defendant's six-day sentence by the metropolitan court for criminal contempt upon failure to pay fines or do community service in lieu of the fines was not in excess of the court's authority, as the power to punish for contempt is inherent in the courts and the magistrate and metropolitan (which is a magistrate) court rules governing contempt control over this section. State v. Jones, 1987-NMCA-004, 105 N.M. 465, 734 P.2d 243, cert. denied, 105 N.M. 395, 733 P.2d 364.
An appeal from a finding of direct criminal contempt shall be tried de novo in the district court. — Where the magistrate court filed an order finding that defendant committed direct criminal contempt during a video arraignment, and where defendant appealed to the district court, the district court did not have jurisdiction to conduct an on-the-record review; the magistrate court is not a court of record, and therefore appeals from the magistrate court shall be tried de novo in the district court. The district court was required to hold a trial de novo, in which the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant committed direct criminal contempt of the magistrate court. State ex rel. Bevacqua-Young v. Steele, 2017-NMCA-081, cert. denied.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Justices of the Peace § 104.
Right to punish for contempt for failure to obey court order or decree either beyond power or jurisdiction of court or merely erroneous, 12 A.L.R.2d 1059.
Disqualification of judge in proceedings to punish contempt against or involving himself or court of which he is a member, 64 A.L.R.2d 600, 37 A.L.R.4th 1004.
Court's power to punish for contempt a child within age group subject to jurisdiction of juvenile court, 77 A.L.R.2d 1004.
Separate contempt punishments on successive refusals to respond to same or similar questions, 94 A.L.R.2d 1246.
Delay in adjudication of contempt committed in the actual presence of court as affecting court's power to punish contemnor, 100 A.L.R.2d 439.
Allowance of attorney's fees in civil contempt proceedings, 43 A.L.R.3d 793.
Contempt: state court's power to order indefinite coercive fine or imprisonment to exact promise of future compliance with court's order - anticipatory contempt, 81 A.L.R.4th 1008.
Lack of notice to contemnor at time of contemptuous conduct of possible criminal contempt sanctions as affecting prosecution for contempt in federal court, 76 A.L.R. Fed. 797.