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 municipal court judge in Santa Fe, New Mexico, was required by city ordinance to reside within the city limits while holding office. From winter 2000 through November 2002, the judge failed to maintain a continuous and significant physical presence at a residence within the city limits, although she claimed to have maintained a physical address, voter registration, and other documentation in the city. After a formal investigation began, she resumed compliance with the residency requirement (paras 3).
Procedural History
- Judicial Standards Commission, February 4, 2003: The judge entered into a plea and stipulation agreement with the Commission, acknowledging sufficient evidence of misconduct and agreeing to recommended disciplinary measures (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Judicial Standards Commission: Argued that the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to comply with the residency requirement and recommended formal reprimand, reimbursement of investigation costs, and continued compliance with the ordinance (paras 1-2).
- Respondent (Judge): Acknowledged the Commission had sufficient evidence to prove the violations but asserted that she believed she had an intent to reside in the city and promptly resumed compliance after the investigation began (paras 3).
Legal Issues
- Did the judge's failure to maintain a continuous and significant physical presence within the city limits constitute a violation 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 reimburse the complainant for private investigation fees and expenses.
- The judge was required to comply with the city ordinance and maintain residency within the city limits while holding office.
- Both parties were to bear their own costs and expenses (paras 7-8).
Reasons
Per Chief Justice Petra Jimenez Maes, Justice Pamela B. Minzner, Justice Patricio M. Serna, and Justice Richard C. Bosson:
The Court found that the judge's failure to maintain a continuous and significant physical presence within the city limits violated multiple Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including upholding the integrity of the judiciary, avoiding impropriety, and minimizing conflicts with judicial obligations (para 4). The judge's conduct was deemed willful misconduct in office (para 5). The Court determined that the recommended disciplinary measures, including a formal reprimand, reimbursement of investigation costs, and compliance with the residency ordinance, were appropriate to address the violations and ensure adherence to judicial standards (paras 6-7).