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 magistrate court judge in Dona Ana County, New Mexico, engaged in conduct that violated judicial ethics. Between April 2001 and June 2002, the judge had conflicts with court interpreters, another judge, and a court clerk, including issuing an arrest warrant for a court interpreter on a criminal contempt charge, which was later quashed. The judge also engaged in ex parte communication with another judge, who felt threatened and recused herself from the case (paras 3-5).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, February 12, 2003: The commission filed a verified petition for discipline with the New Mexico Supreme Court, recommending disciplinary measures based on a plea and stipulation agreement (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the judge violated multiple provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including failing to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, engaging in improper conduct, and failing to perform judicial duties impartially and diligently. Recommended discipline in the form of a formal reprimand, mentorship, and completion of a judicial ethics course (paras 2, 6).
- Respondent (Judge): Admitted that the commission had sufficient evidence to prove the allegations and agreed to the recommended disciplinary measures (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Did the judge’s conduct violate the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What disciplinary measures are appropriate for the judge’s violations?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Supreme Court imposed the recommended disciplinary measures, including a formal reprimand, participation in a mentorship program, and completion of a judicial ethics course (paras 8-9).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Pamela B. Minzner, Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Richard C. Bosson, and Justice Edward L. Chávez:
The Court found that the judge’s conduct violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including failing to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, engaging in improper conduct, and failing to perform judicial duties impartially and diligently (para 6). The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial ethics standards. The judge was ordered to bear the costs of the ethics course and comply with all terms of the discipline (paras 8-9).