N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-208
N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-208
Committee commentary. -
[1] The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty imposed in Rule 21-205 NMRA to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.
[2] Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.
[3] A judge who is not otherwise prohibited by law from doing so may meet with jurors who choose to remain after trial but should be careful not to discuss the merits of the case.
[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 Improperly touching a party. - Where, at a hearing in a case involving a building permit, the judge kept moving the judge's chair closer to the code enforcement officer and the defendant, kept moving the judge's hands around, and touched the defendant with the result that the code enforcement officer and the defendant felt uncomfortable and moved away from the judge; and prior to the hearing, the mayor of the municipality had told the judge that the code enforcement officer had filed an EEOC claim against the judge based on improper touching, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Lozano, S.Ct. No. 29,264 (Filed June 8, 2010) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Improper demeanor and abuse of contempt power. - Where a judge referred to the presiding judge in a condescending matter to court staff and the court manager; refused to listen to a litigant, raised the judge's voice, and banged on the bench when the litigant tried to explain why the litigant failed to appear at a pre-trial conference and then held the litigant in direct contempt; and in another case, held a litigant in contempt during a pre-trial conference and then released the contempt order an hour later, 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). Napping. - Where a judge took naps during the noon hour in view of the public and court staff and on one occasion, the judge fell asleep while defendants were waiting for paperwork from the judge's secretary, 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). Director of a DWI school. - Where, as permitted by a municipal ordinance, a municipal judge was the owner and director of a DWI school and had a pecuniary interest in having individuals initially appear before the judge in court and then attend the DWI school, the judge's conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct. In re Rainaldi, 1986-NMSC-079, 104 N.M. 762, 727 P.2d 70 (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). Failure to maintain judicial demeanor. - Where, during a bench trial, a judge became agitated with and yelled at the defendant, stood up and hit a gavel on the bench that caused debris, including paper clips, to scatter across the room, striking the defendant and the prosecuting officer, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Pindea, S.Ct. No. 29,479 (Filed November 29, 2005) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Personal involvement with trial counsel and harassment of trial counsel. - Where a judge presided over and took judicial action in cases in which the assistant district attorney appeared on behalf of the state during the time the judge was engaged in a personal relationship with the assistant district attorney; the judge failed to inform all counsel or parties of record of the judge's relationship with the assistant district attorney in cases where the assistant district attorney appeared before the judge; the judge failed to be patient, dignified and courteous to counsel by making inappropriate remarks to assistant district attorneys about the judge's rulings in front of defendants, defense counsel, and co-counsel; and in one case, the judge suppressed evidence of a breath test, refused to allow the assistant district attorney to call the officer who administered the breath test to testify, and then taunted the assistant district attorney about not being able to prove the state's case, the judge committed willful misconduct in office. In re Galvan, S.Ct. No. 28,609 (Filed May 17, 2004) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Failure to maintain judicial demeanor was not willful misconduct. - Where a defendant's parent posted a cash bond to obtain the release of the defendant; the judge had not set bail; when the parent inquired of the judge about obtaining the return of the cash bond, the judge acted in a rude and angry manner and informed the judge's secretary to forfeit the bond even though no trial had been held and no plea had been entered for the defendant; and the judge directed the parent to surrender the receipt for the cash bond and then told the parent that the cash bond would not be refunded and that the receipt would not be returned to the parent, because the cash bond would take care of the fine, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Romero, 1983-NMSC-054, 100 N.M. 180, 668 P.2d 296 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation).