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 presiding over a jury trial declared a mistrial and excused himself from the case. Following this, the judge displayed inappropriate behavior, including yelling, threatening the defendant and defense counsel, and making disparaging remarks about the Judicial Standards Commission. The judge later apologized for his conduct and agreed to recuse himself from cases involving the defense counsel and her law partner (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, January 26, 2004: Issued a notice of preliminary investigation and filed a verified petition for temporary suspension (para 2).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, February 5, 2004: Ordered the respondent to file a response to the petition for temporary suspension (para 2).
- Supreme Court of New Mexico, March 22, 2004: Denied the petition for temporary suspension (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the respondent's conduct violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including upholding the integrity of the judiciary, avoiding impropriety, and performing judicial duties impartially and diligently (para 7).
- Respondent (Judge): Entered into a no-contest plea and stipulation agreement, acknowledging the stipulated factual and legal conclusions regarding his conduct (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Did the respondent's conduct violate the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What disciplinary measures are appropriate for the respondent's misconduct?
Disposition
- The respondent was censured and subjected to disciplinary measures, including psychological evaluation, anger management, supervised probation, and publication of the censure order in the Bar Bulletin (paras 9-10).
Reasons
Per curiam (Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justices Patricio M. Serna, Richard C. Bosson, and Edward L. Chávez concurring):
The Court found that the respondent's conduct violated Canons 21-100, 21-200(A), and 21-300(B)(2), (B)(3), and (B)(4) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, constituting willful misconduct in office (paras 7-8). The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct. The measures included psychological evaluation, anger management, supervised probation, and publication of the censure order to maintain the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence in the judicial system (paras 9-10).