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 probate judge issued three checks in 1996 and 2000, knowing she had insufficient funds in her accounts to cover them. The checks were issued to businesses in Taos, New Mexico, for amounts ranging from $71.76 to $96.13. This conduct violated New Mexico's criminal statute on issuing worthless checks, which constitutes a felony. Additionally, the judge failed to cooperate with the Judicial Standards Commission's investigation by not responding to a notice of preliminary investigation (paras 3-6).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, March 27, 2001: The Commission approved a plea and stipulation agreement with the judge, recommending a formal reprimand and participation in a mentorship program (para 2).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the judge's conduct violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including upholding the integrity of the judiciary, avoiding impropriety, and cooperating with the Commission. Recommended a formal reprimand and supervised probation (paras 7-9).
- Respondent (Judge): Admitted to the underlying conduct and agreed to the plea and stipulation agreement, which included a formal reprimand and mentorship (para 2).
Legal Issues
- Did the judge's conduct in issuing checks with insufficient funds and failing to cooperate with the Judicial Standards Commission constitute violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct?
- What disciplinary measures were appropriate for the judge's misconduct?
Disposition
- The judge was formally reprimanded.
- The judge was ordered to continue supervised probation under the mentorship of another judge, with progress reports to be submitted to the Commission and the Court (para 10).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Joseph F. Baca, Justice Gene E. Franchini, Justice Pamela B. Minzner, and Justice Petra Jimenez Maes:
The Court found that the judge's actions in issuing checks with insufficient funds and failing to cooperate with the Judicial Standards Commission constituted willful misconduct in office. These actions violated several Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including the requirements to uphold the integrity of the judiciary, avoid impropriety, and cooperate with the Commission. The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures—a formal reprimand and supervised probation—were appropriate to address the violations and ensure compliance with judicial standards (paras 7-9).