Unlawful assembly consists of three or more persons assembling together with intent to do any unlawful act with force or violence against the person or property of another, and who shall make any overt act to carry out such unlawful purpose.

Whoever commits unlawful assembly is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

History: 1953 Comp., § 40A-20-4, enacted by Laws 1963, ch. 303, § 20-4.

Watermelon stealing. — Boys on a watermelon stealing escapade were guilty of having assembled unlawfully to do an unlawful act of force and violence against the property in question and to commit an unlawful act against the peace. Brown v. Martinez, 1961-NMSC-040, 68 N.M. 271, 361 P.2d 152.

Interfering with mine. — Testimony that activities of accused prevented workmen from entering mine, that it was planned to shut off pump in mine, without which the mine would be flooded, and that gas bombs were necessary to disperse the crowd about mine shaft was sufficient to sustain a conviction of unlawful assembly under Laws 1876, ch. 10, § 1 (former 40-12-10, 1953 Comp.). State v. Gennis, 1937-NMSC-042, 41 N.M. 453, 70 P.2d 902.

Attack on school bus driver. — Evidence that defendants acted in concert in meeting school bus and attacking driver thereof was sufficient to support verdict of unlawful assembly under Laws 1876, ch. 10, § 1 (former 40-12-10, 1953 Comp.). State v. Hawks, 1923-NMSC-035, 28 N.M. 486, 214 P. 753.

Indictment sufficient. — Indictment charging defendant and 100 other persons with unlawful assembly was not defective for failure to allege names of others than defendants or that their names were unknown. State v. Gennis, 1937-NMSC-042, 41 N.M. 453, 70 P.2d 902.

Member of unlawful assembly may not recover for injuries inflicted upon him by a fellow member while they are carrying out the unlawful purposes of such assembly if there is a causal connection between such act and the injury. Curry v. Vesely, 1960-NMSC-007, 66 N.M. 372, 348 P.2d 490.

Unless unlawful plan abandoned. — Where boy who, along with a group of others, had been proceeding to picnic grounds to take part in a nighttime gang fight had either never intended to have any part in contemplated fight or had abandoned intention to do so prior to his injury, judgment against driver of other vehicle in the group for injuries in accident caused by his negligence would be affirmed. Curry v. Vesely, 1960-NMSC-007, 66 N.M. 372, 348 P.2d 490.

Suppression of riot as homicide defense. — Request for directed verdict based on defense of suppression of riot was properly refused in homicide prosecution where there was no proof of any common design by decedent's party to do some unlawful act. State v. Martinez, 1949-NMSC-053, 53 N.M. 432, 210 P.2d 620.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 54 Am. Jur. 2d Mobs and Riots §§ 19, 23 et seq.

What constitutes offense of unlawful assembly, 71 A.L.R.2d 875.

"Choice of evils," necessity, duress, or similar defense to state or local criminal charges based on acts of public protest, 3 A.L.R.5th 521.

91 C.J.S. Unlawful Assembly § 2.