This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case concerns a municipal judge who engaged in three instances of misconduct: (1) improperly claiming per diem expenses for a training session that never occurred, (2) exhibiting inappropriate courtroom behavior by moving his chair closer to two women and touching one of them during a hearing, despite prior warnings about similar conduct, and (3) failing to conduct a trial within the required 182-day period, though this was later determined not to constitute willful misconduct (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, 2009: The judge was previously reprimanded and fined for having business interests that conflicted with his judicial duties (para 18).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the judge's conduct violated multiple provisions of the New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct, constituted willful misconduct, and warranted sanctions including suspension, probation, reimbursement of improperly received funds, and mandatory training (paras 1, 6, and 18).
- Respondent (Judge): Admitted to the stipulated facts, accepted responsibility for his actions, and agreed to the proposed sanctions, including training and mentorship to prevent future misconduct (paras 6 and 18).
Legal Issues
- Did the judge's acceptance of per diem expenses for a training session that did not occur constitute willful misconduct?
- Was the judge's inappropriate courtroom demeanor during a hearing a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- Did the judge's failure to conduct a trial within the 182-day period constitute willful misconduct?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary action for the judge's misconduct?
Disposition
- The judge was found to have committed willful misconduct in two of the three matters (paras 10, 14, and 16).
- The judge was suspended without pay for 90 days, placed on 12 months of supervised probation and mentorship, formally reprimanded, ordered to reimburse $260 in improperly received per diem expenses, and required to complete training on financial practices and sexual harassment (paras 19-20).
Reasons
Per Charles W. Daniels, Chief Justice (Serna, Maes, Bosson, and Chávez JJ. concurring):
Per Diem Expenses: The judge knowingly accepted reimbursement for a training session that never occurred, breaching public trust and violating multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including rules requiring integrity, impartiality, and compliance with the law (paras 9-11).
Courtroom Demeanor: The judge's inappropriate behavior during a hearing, including moving his chair closer to two women and touching one of them, was particularly troubling given prior warnings about similar conduct. This violated rules requiring judges to maintain decorum, avoid impropriety, and act impartially (paras 12-14).
Failure to Conduct Trial Within 182 Days: The judge's failure to meet the 182-day trial deadline did not constitute willful misconduct, as the time limit is not jurisdictional, and there was no evidence of improper intent (para 16).
Disciplinary Measures: The Court emphasized the seriousness of the judge's misconduct, particularly in light of prior disciplinary action, but acknowledged his acceptance of responsibility and willingness to undergo training. The combination of suspension, probation, mentorship, reimbursement, and training was deemed appropriate to address the misconduct and prevent recurrence (paras 17-18).