N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-205
N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-205
Committee commentary. -
[1] Competence in the performance of judicial duties requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary to perform a judge's responsibilities of judicial office. Judges should make diligent effort to maintain knowledge of current developments in the law through ongoing education.
[2] A judge should seek the necessary docket time, court staff, expertise, and resources to discharge all adjudicative and administrative responsibilities.
[3] Prompt disposition of the court's business requires a judge to devote adequate time to judicial duties, to be punctual in attending court and expeditious in determining matters under submission, and to take reasonable measures to ensure that court officials, litigants, and their lawyers cooperate with the judge to that end. The business of the court is a full-time demand. A judge's extrajudicial activities should not unreasonably interfere with the administration of justice and the timely performance of judicial duties.
[4] In disposing of matters promptly and efficiently, a judge must demonstrate due regard for the rights of parties to be heard and to have issues resolved without unnecessary cost or delay. A judge should monitor or supervise cases in ways that reduce or eliminate dilatory practices, avoidable delays, and unnecessary costs.
[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, effective January 1, 2012.]
ANNOTATIONS Recompilations. - Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, the former Judicial Code of Conduct was recompiled, effective January 1, 2012. See the table of corresponding rules for former rule numbers and the corresponding new rule numbers. JUDICIAL REPRIMANDS Failure or inability to perform judicial duties. - Where a judge refused to arraign defendants who had failed to appear and instead served the defendants with bench warrants when they appeared, failed to properly sentence defendants, was not familiar with sentencing laws, and failed to complete arraignment forms, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Guillory, S.Ct. No. 31,920 (Filed December 7, 2010) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Abusing prestige of judicial office. - Where a municipal court judge had private conversations with a contractor about the contractor's personal financial dispute with landowners who allegedly owned the contractor money for cleaning up the landowners' property; the judge called the landowners and left a message on the landowners' answering machine in which the judge identified himself as a judge and stated that the judge was calling about the financial dispute between them and the contractor and that the judge wanted the matter cleared up; the judge subsequently wrote the landowners a letter on municipal stationery, using the judge's title and court name discussing the contractor's claim and indicating that a lawsuit would be filed if the contractor was not paid; two weeks later, the judge was assigned to preside over a nuisance action by the municipality concerning the land that the contractor had supposedly cleaned; and the judge accepted the case and issued a summons to the landowners that did not conform with the rules of procedure, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Ramirez, S.Ct. No. 31,664 (Filed June 29, 2009) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Giving advice to a witness in a case pending before the judge. - Where the judge had an ex parte conversation with the complaining witness in a domestic violence case that was pending before the judge; the witness had been subpoenaed by the state to appear and testify at the witness' spouse's trial; the judge advised the witness that if the witness did not want to testify, there would be no adverse consequences; the witness did not appeal at the trial; the assistant district attorney informed the judge that the district attorney's office has been informed of the ex parte communication with the witness; the judge began drafting a recusal; when the witness appeared, the judge recalled the case and dismissed it; and the judge subsequently produced a recusal that was different from the document that had been reviewed by the assistant district attorney, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Rodella, 2008-NMSC-050, 144 N.M. 617, 190 P.3d 338 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Adjudicating traffic cases for family members and friends. - Where a judge adjudicated more than twenty cases involving family members, friends, and family members of friends and staff, ex parte without hearings or taking evidence; the judge was not the assigned judge and adjudicated the cases before their scheduled arraignment dates, either deferring or continuing the cases with the requirement that no further traffic violations occur within ninety days; and where defendants had failed to appear, the judge cancelled bench warrants and dismissed charges for failure to appear, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Griego, 2008-NMSC-020, 143 N.M. 698, 181 P.3d 690 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Alcoholism. - Where a judge recessed a criminal jury trial for a long holiday weekend; the judge did not return to court on the date set for the completion of the trial; the judge told an administrative assistant that the judge was ill, but would be in court in the afternoon; the judge did not return that day and the judge's staff rescheduled the trial for two days later; on the day the trial was to resume, the judge told the assistant that the judge was hospitalized for heart-related tests; after the trial was twice reset due to the judge's unavailability, a stipulated mistrial order was entered; the judge was absent for two weeks during which the judge was hospitalized for six days; the judge's heart ailment and the hospitalization were due to alcohol withdrawal; and to justify the judge's absence, the judge told a reporter that the judge was being treated for and was recovering from a mild heart attack, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Pope, S.Ct. No. 29,778 (Filed June 13, 2007) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Adoption of procedural rules. - Where a judge implemented the judge's own rule that precluded any individual from appearing before the judge unless the individual presented photographic identification; a defendant, who appeared ten minutes before the defendant's trial was refused admittance into the courtroom; the defendant left to obtain a new driver's license; staff advised the judge that the defendant had arrived, but had left to obtain a new driver's license to comply with the photo-identification rule; the defendant returned to the courthouse within one hour, but was told that the judge had left and would return the next day; and when the defendant appeared the next day, the defendant was arrested on a bench warrant issued by the judge, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Pineda, S.Ct. No. 29,479 (Filed July 31, 2007) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Failure to hear cases, follow rules and respect judges and court officials. - Where a judge intentionally violated courthouse rules and policies; treated security officers in a hostile, rude, angry, threatening manner; used offensive language toward security officers and court employees; tossed objects, yelled and pounded on a desk when court personnel withheld the judge's assistant's paycheck pursuant to court rules and policies; asserted that the assistant was not required to comply with security guidelines and policies and prohibited security personnel from screening the assistant; permitted the assistant to behave in an unprofessional manner and condoned and assisted the assistant in violating and refusing to comply with court policies, being rude to court employees, and complaining about other judges refused to issue bench warrants during traffic arraignment court week because the judge did not want the assistant to process the warrants during traffic arraignment dockets and filed recusals in those cases; and waived prior supervised probation costs imposed by statute, the judge committed willful misconduct in office. In re Barnhart, S.Ct. No 29,379 (Filed October 19, 2005) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Allowing a friendship relationship to influence judicial conduct. - Where a judge was assigned a criminal case in which the defendant was charged with multiple counts of trafficking cocaine and distribution of methamphetamine; during the proceedings, the judge stipulated that the judge knew that by presiding over defendant's case the judge would not appear to be impartial, because the judge had a personal relationship with the attorney for and fiance of the defendant who subsequently became the spouse of the defendant; the judge did not recuse from the case; the defendant pled no contest; the pre-sentence report stated that the defendant was a drug dealer and recommended prison sentences; at the sentencing hearing, the judge considered assigning the defendant to a new drug court program in lieu of incarceration; the judge agreed with the chief judge to recuse from the case; at a sentencing hearing before the new judge, the defendant stated that the original judge wanted to revoke the recusal; the new judge recused; and the original judge revoked the recusal and accepted jurisdiction over sentencing, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re McBee, 2006-NMSC-024, 138 N.M. 482, 134 P.3d 769 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Knowingly failing to credit inmates with statutory credit for incarceration. - Where a judge knowingly failed to follow and apply the law when the judge incarcerated citizens for failure to pay fines by crediting inmates with only $5.00 per day of time served toward payment of fines and fees, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Wood, S.Ct. No. 29,085 (Filed May 12, 2005) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Display of extreme anger. - Where, after the judge declared a mistrial and recused from a criminal trial, the judge came off the bench and yelled at the defendant; defense counsel stood in front of the defendant to block the judge's access to the defendant; the judge then passed through the swinging gate, turned, and told defense counsel and the defendant that they could write to the Judicial Standards Commission and tell them what the judge thought of the commission; and the judge brought the jury back into the courtroom and explained that there had been a mistrial; and the judge apologized to the counsel several times and agreed to recuse in their cases, the conduct of the judge constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Vincent, S.Ct. No. 27,266 (Filed May 19, 2004) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Inappropriate demeanor, interference in pending case and illegal modification of sentence. - Where a judge made inappropriate, age and/or gender-based references to female attorneys who appeared before the judge; after the state lost a six-month rule hearing, the judge threatened the Public Defender's Office and its employees; the judge told a defendant in a criminal drug case that the defendant was covering up for the defendant's children and that the defendant could post a property bond with the intention that the state could get rid of the defendant's house if there were complaints by the defendant's neighbors; after filing a recusal in a case, the judge became involved in a pretrial conference in the case and testified against a motion filed by the Public Defender's Office; referred to a female magistrate court judge in an inappropriate, derogatory, and gender-based manner; criticized a female attorney for being employed by the Public Defender's Office; and after the Public Defender's Office filed a notice of appeal from the judge's ruling, verbally modified a sentence and order of eligibility by ex parte communication with the monitoring agent, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Vincent, S.Ct. No. 27,266 (Filed March 22, 2002) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Issuing insufficient funds checks. - Where a judge, on three separate occasions, issued checks in payment of the judge's debts knowing at the time the checks were issued that there were insufficient funds in or credit with the bank to pay the checks in full upon presentation and the judge failed to cooperate and comply with the rules, requirements and procedures of the Judicial Standards Commission by failing to file a written response to the commission's notice of preliminary investigation, the judge's conduct was willful misconduct in office. In re Vigil, S.Ct. No. 26,328 (Filed May 7, 2001) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Failure to comply with the law. - Where a judge approved and agreed in a plea and disposition agreement to withhold from the Motor Vehicle Division an abstract of record upon the defendant's completion of a probationary period and in another case, failed to impose the mandatory minimum sentence required by law, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Sanchez, S.Ct. No. 25,821 (Filed August 17, 1999) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Failure to perform judicial duties. - Where a magistrate judge delayed in signing and filing written judgments and sentences; failed to impose the mandatory minimum sentences required by law and failed to submit abstracts of record to the Department of Motor Vehicles within the time required by law, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Perea, S.Ct. No. 25,822 (August 17, 1999) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Harassment and abuse of staff and failure to obey orders of the chief judge. - Where a judge ordered the court administrator to ignore the chief judge's orders; ordered a deputy sheriff to arrest the administrator for contempt; repeatedly refused to comply with the chief judge's orders; used profanity and yelled at a deputy sheriff when the deputy sheriff asked for the judge's daily docket sheet; refused to hear domestic violence cases the judge had agreed to hear to relieve the load on a hearing officer; after being ordered to hear domestic cases by the chief judge, the judge failed to hear all issues and ordered the hearing officer to hear the issues; treated the hearing officer discourteously and disrespectfully; worked very little for a seven-month period; and made inquiries into an adoption case that involved a relative of the chief judge and disclosed confidential information from the file, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Castellano, 1995-NMSC-007, 119 N.M. 140, 889 P.2d 175 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Intentional denial of right to appeal. - Where a judge ruled in favor of the defendant, refused to enter a judgment in the case to prevent the plaintiff from appealing in order to force the plaintiff to settle with the defendant; when the Supreme Court ordered the judge to enter a judgment, the judge expanded the issues litigated in the case; and after being reversed, the judge refused to award costs to the plaintiff, precipitating another appeal, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Castellano, 1995-NMSC-007, 119 N.M. 140, 889 P.2d 175 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Countermanding presiding judge's orders. - Where, in a case that was assigned to the presiding judge, the presiding judge ordered that a commitment be issued to transport the defendants to the penitentiary upon receipt of the appellant court mandate; while the presiding judge was hearing cases in another district, the judge who was not assigned to the case and who was a friend of the parent of one of the defendants stopped the sheriff from transporting the defendants; without a motion by the counsel for the defendants, notice to the district attorney or a hearing, the judge prepared an order delaying the transportation; when consulted by the sheriff, the presiding judge ordered the sheriff to proceed with the transportation of the defendants; the judge again stopped the sheriff, served the sheriff with a writ of habeas corpus, and ordered the sheriff to return the defendants to jail; and the presiding judge directed the state police to assist the sheriff with transporting the defendants, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Martinez, 1982-NMSC-115, 99 N.M. 198, 656 P.2d 861 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation).