This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A municipal judge in Roswell, New Mexico, displayed improper judicial demeanor during a bench trial. The judge became agitated with a pro se defendant, yelled, stood up, and struck his gavel with such force that debris, including paper clips, scattered across the courtroom, reportedly striking the defendant and a police officer. The judge admitted to the conduct but claimed not to have seen the debris scatter or strike anyone (paras 3-4).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, October 3, 2005: Approved a stipulation agreement and consent to discipline between the commission and the judge (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the judge's conduct violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including maintaining order and decorum, avoiding impropriety, and upholding the integrity of the judiciary (paras 5-6).
- Respondent (Judge): Admitted to the conduct but denied seeing the debris scatter or strike anyone. Agreed to the stipulation and consent to discipline (paras 4-6).
Legal Issues
- Did the judge's conduct violate the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What is the appropriate disciplinary action for the judge's misconduct?
Disposition
- The judge was formally reprimanded, fined $500, required to complete mentorship and remedial training, and placed on six months of supervised probation (paras 7-9).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Richard C. Bosson, Justice Pamela B. Minzner, Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, and Justice Edward L. Chávez:
The Court found that the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office and violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including maintaining order and decorum, avoiding impropriety, and upholding the judiciary's integrity. The stipulated discipline, including a formal reprimand, fine, mentorship, and probation, was deemed appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards in the future (paras 5-7).