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 Petitioner, JMB Retail Properties Company, filed a peremptory election to excuse the presiding district judge, Hon. Benjamin S. Eastburn, in a case where JMB was a defendant. The judge denied the election, asserting that JMB had invoked the court's discretion by requesting an extension of time to respond to the lawsuit, which precluded the peremptory challenge under New Mexico law.
Procedural History
- District Court, April 28, 1992: Judge Eastburn denied JMB's peremptory election to excuse him, citing untimeliness and constitutional concerns regarding the statutory and procedural rules governing such challenges.
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (JMB Retail Properties Company): Argued that the statutory and procedural rules allowing peremptory challenges to judges are constitutional and that the judge's denial of their election was improper. JMB contended that requesting an extension of time did not constitute invoking judicial discretion, and thus, their challenge was timely.
- Respondent (Hon. Benjamin S. Eastburn): Asserted that the statutes and rules permitting peremptory challenges to judges are unconstitutional under the separation of powers clause of the New Mexico Constitution. He argued that his grant of an extension of time was a discretionary act, barring JMB from excusing him.
Legal Issues
- Whether the Petitioner’s request for an extension of time constituted an invocation of judicial discretion, thereby precluding a peremptory challenge to the judge.
- Whether the statutory and procedural rules allowing peremptory challenges to judges are constitutional.
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico denied JMB's petition for a writ of superintending control, prohibition, or mandamus, holding that the request for an extension of time invoked judicial discretion, precluding the peremptory challenge.
Reasons
Per Ransom CJ (Baca and Frost JJ. concurring):
The Court reaffirmed the principle that a judge cannot be peremptorily disqualified after a party has invoked the court's discretion. It held that JMB's agreed motion for an extension of time constituted such an invocation, as the judge's response to the motion was discretionary, not ministerial. The Court emphasized the importance of a bright-line rule to avoid subjective determinations about the significance or intent of judicial actions. While JMB did not intend to waive its right to challenge the judge, the invocation of discretion barred the challenge under Rule 1-088.1. The Court declined to address the constitutional issues raised, adhering to the principle of avoiding unnecessary constitutional determinations.