AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 district judge in New Mexico, believing that the statutory right of parties to peremptorily excuse judges infringed upon his constitutional authority, refused to comply with laws and court orders mandating recognition of such excusals. The judge issued administrative orders and statements defying these rules, criticized the judicial system in inflammatory terms, and refused to hear cases reassigned to him after peremptory challenges of other judges (paras 2-3, 8-13).

Procedural History

• Johnson v. Eastburn, No. 17598 (N.M. Mar. 23, 1988): The Supreme Court of New Mexico issued a writ of prohibition against the judge for proceeding in a criminal case where he had been disqualified (para 7).
• JMB Retail Properties Co. v. Eastburn, 114 N.M. 115, 835 P.2d 831 (1992): The judge's challenge to the constitutionality of peremptory excusal statutes was noted but not decided (para 7).
• State ex rel. Whitehead v. Eastburn, Nos. 20878 & 20879 (N.M. Nov. 23, 1992): The Supreme Court issued writs of superintending control, ordering the judge to recognize peremptory excusals and rescind his administrative order refusing to honor them (para 8).
• Thompson v. Ireland, No. 20823 (Oct. 13, 1992): The Supreme Court issued a writ ordering the judge to proceed no further in a criminal case where a peremptory excusal had been denied (para 8).
• Suvall v. Eastburn, No. 23018 (N.M. July 26, 1995): The Supreme Court issued a writ of mandamus requiring the judge to hear a case reassigned to him after a peremptory challenge of another judge (para 12).

Parties' Submissions

• Judge (Respondent): Argued that the peremptory excusal statute infringed on judicial independence and the separation of powers. He also criticized the judicial system as corrupt and claimed his actions were based on conscience and constitutional principles (paras 2, 14-15).
• Supreme Court of New Mexico (Petitioner): Asserted that the judge's refusal to comply with court orders and statutory mandates undermined the rule of law, public confidence in the judiciary, and the integrity of the judicial system (paras 16, 23-24).

Legal Issues

• Whether a judge may refuse to comply with statutory and court-mandated peremptory excusal rules on the basis of personal or constitutional objections.
• Whether the judge's conduct violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and constituted contempt of court.

Disposition

• The judge was suspended from his duties for one year, with the first 30 days without pay, and placed on probation for the remaining 11 months (para 1).
• The court issued a formal censure of the judge for his conduct (para 1).

Reasons

Per curiam (Baca C.J., Ransom, Franchini, Frost, and Minzner JJ.):

The court emphasized that judges are bound by their oath to uphold the law, including statutes, court rules, and orders, regardless of personal beliefs or objections (paras 2-3, 16). The judge's refusal to comply with the peremptory excusal statute and related court orders, coupled with his inflammatory rhetoric, undermined public confidence in the judiciary and violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to respect the law and promote public trust in the judicial system (paras 16, 23-24).

The court rejected the judge's argument that his actions were justified by conscience or constitutional principles, noting that judges must adhere to established legal precedents and orders, even if they disagree with them (paras 19, 23). The judge's conduct, including his public statements disparaging the judiciary, was found to pose a serious threat to the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system (paras 20-21).

The court concluded that the judge's actions constituted direct contempt of court and warranted disciplinary measures to deter similar conduct in the future and to preserve public confidence in the judiciary (paras 23-24).