N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-207
A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge, except when disqualification is required by Rule 21-211 NMRA, the constitution, or other law.
N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-207
Committee commentary. -
[1] Judges must be available to decide the matters that come before the court. Although there are times when disqualification is necessary to protect the rights of litigants and preserve public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, judges must be available to decide matters that come before the courts. Unwarranted disqualification may bring public disfavor to the court and to the judge personally. The dignity of the court, the judge's respect for fulfillment of judicial duties, and a proper concern for the burdens that may be imposed upon the judge's colleagues require that a judge not use disqualification to avoid cases that present difficult, controversial, or unpopular issues.
[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 Potential witness in a criminal case. - Where a magistrate judge released the defendant on the defendant's own recognizance; the defendant had been arrested for driving while intoxicated after a baseball tournament; the judge was not the designated on-call judge on the day the defendant was arrested; the judge knew the defendant and had been at the tournament with the defendant earlier in the day; and the judge knew that there were people drinking alcoholic beverages at the tournament, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office because the judge was a potential witness in the defendant's criminal case. In re Wingenroth, S.Ct. No. 33,228 (Filed October 19, 2011), Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2011-020 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Personal acquaintance with the defendant in a criminal case. - Where the defendant had been arrested for driving while intoxicated after a baseball tournament; the defendant's spouse telephoned the magistrate judge's spouse at the judge's home to discuss the defendant's arrest; the defendant and the defendant's spouse knew the judge's family well enough to call the judge's spouse in an attempt to influence the judge; and the judge agreed to release the defendant on the defendant's own recognizance even though the judge was not on-call or assigned to handle the matter, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office because the judge took judicial action based on the telephone calls from the defendant's family to the judge's home. In re Wingenroth, S.Ct. No. 33,228 (Filed October 19, 2011), Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 2011-020 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). 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). Failure to perform judicial duties. - Where a magistrate judge delayed in signing and filing written judgments and sentences 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 (Filed August 17, 1999) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Delegation of judicial power. - A magistrate court judge who delegated the duty to perform marriages to a municipal clerk committed willful misconduct in office. In re Perea, 1986-NMSC-001, 103 N.M. 617, 711 P.2d 894 (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). Directing secretary to handle traffic docket. - Where a judge took a vacation knowing that the judge would not return in time to handle the judge's traffic docket; the judge called the judge's secretary, told the secretary that the judge's return had been delayed, and instructed the secretary to handle the judge's traffic docket; the secretary handled the traffic docket and used the judge's signature stamp to process the docket; and when the other judges, court personnel, and the media learned about what had occurred, the judge reviewed and signed the cases that the judge's secretary had handled in the judge's absence, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Griego, S.Ct. No. 30,203 (Filed June 13, 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).