In all cases where a change of venue is granted, the case shall be removed to another county within the same judicial district unless the remaining counties are subject to exception, or unless the change of venue is ordered upon any of the grounds relating to the judge. Under these circumstances, the case shall be removed to some county of the nearest judicial district which is free from exception.
History: Laws 1889, ch. 77, § 3; C.L. 1897, § 2883; Code 1915, § 5575; C.S. 1929, § 147-108; 1941 Comp., § 19-506; 1953 Comp., § 21-5-6; Laws 1965, ch. 187, § 2.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — When this section was enacted in 1889, it contained in the first sentence following "judicial district" the words "or to the district court of such judicial district sitting for the trial of cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, which court is hereby given jurisdiction to try and determine all cases so removed." In Lincoln-Lucky & Lee Mining Co. v. District Court, 7 N.M. 486, 38 P. 580 (1894), the territorial supreme court held this section "null and void insofar as it attempts to confer an abstract power upon a court which had been deprived by absolute legal statutory enactment as well as by necessary implication and operation of law, of jurisdiction in territorial causes." The basis was that under U.S. Rev. jurisdictions could be divided and by Laws 1889, ch. 6, they were divided, and only congress could restore the prior status to the court which it had created, and in addition that the section depended upon the Jury Act of 1889 (ch. 96) which had been held in conflict with the Springer Act and "fell with it." The section was included in its original form as Comp. Laws 1897, § 2883 and was not corrected until compiled in the Code of 1915.
Cross references. — For objection by parties to change of venue generally, see 38-3-3 NMSA 1978.
County within the same judicial district was not subject to exception. — Where defendant was charged with first-degree murder for a murder that occurred in Curry county, defendant sought a change of venue to a county outside the ninth judicial district, and defendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of defendant's claim that defendant could not obtain a fair trial in Roosevelt county which was within the ninth judicial district, failed to file any affidavits, failed to admit any media articles, and failed to submit any juror questionnaires exhibiting bias or prejudice, the evidence was insufficient to establish that Roosevelt county was subject to exception and the trial court properly ordered that venue be removed to Roosevelt county. State v. Salas, 2010-NMSC-028, 148 N.M. 313, 236 P.3d 32.
When the venue in a criminal case is changed at the instance of the accused, he will not be heard to question its regularity after selecting for himself the place of trial. State v. Balles, 1918-NMSC-054, 24 N.M. 16, 172 P. 196.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 77 Am. Jur. 2d Venue §§ 88, 89.
92 C.J.S. Venue § 197.