Dueling consists of any person:
A. conveying by written or verbal message a challenge to any other person to fight a duel with any deadly weapon, and whether or not such duel ensues;
B. accepting a challenge from another person to fight a duel with any deadly weapon, and whether or not such duel ensues;
C. engaging in or fighting a duel with any deadly weapon; or
D. aiding, encouraging or seconding either party to a duel and being present at such duel when deadly weapons are used.
Whoever commits dueling is guilty of a fourth degree felony.
History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-20-7, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 20-7.
Cross references. — For definition of deadly weapon, see 30-1-12 NMSA 1978.
Purpose of antidueling statutes is to discourage and discountenance the settlement of quarrels by duel. State v. Romero, 1990-NMCA-114, 111 N.M. 99, 801 P.2d 681, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 77, 801 P.2d 659.
Dueling defined. — A duel is a combat with deadly weapons between two persons, fought according to the terms of a precedent agreement and under certain agreed and prescribed rules. State v. Romero, 1990-NMCA-114, 111 N.M. 99, 801 P.2d 681, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 77, 801 P.2d 659.
Duel distinguished from affray. — A duel differs from an affray in that the former is always a result of design while the latter is upon a sudden quarrel. State v. Romero, 1990-NMCA-114, 111 N.M. 99, 801 P.2d 681, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 77, 801 P.2d 659.
Characteristics of dueling. — A duel has none of the elements of sudden heat and passion. State v. Romero, 1990-NMCA-114, 111 N.M. 99, 801 P.2d 681, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 77, 801 P.2d 659.
Duels are generally fought under rules of considerable formality. State v. Romero, 1990-NMCA-114, 111 N.M. 99, 801 P.2d 681, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 77, 801 P.2d 659.
Conviction reversed. — Conviction for dueling was reversed, where a formal agreement to fight a duel could not be inferred from evidence that the respective combatants went to their home and car to retrieve their weapons, that they were facing each other as they were shooting, and that gunfire took place in rapid succession. State v. Romero, 1990-NMCA-114, 111 N.M. 99, 801 P.2d 681, cert. denied, 111 N.M. 77, 801 P.2d 659.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.— 25 Am. Jur. 2d Dueling § 1.
28A C.J.S. Dueling § 2.
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.