N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-210

As amended through February 27, 2024

Rule 21-210 - Judicial statements on pending and impending cases

A. A judge shall not make any public statement that might reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court, or make any nonpublic statement that might substantially interfere with a fair trial or hearing.

B. A judge shall not, in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

C. A judge shall require court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control to refrain from making statements that the judge would be prohibited from making by Paragraphs A and B.

D. Notwithstanding the restrictions in Paragraph A, a judge may make public statements in the course of official duties, may explain court procedures, and may comment on any proceeding in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity.

E. Subject to the requirements of Paragraph A, a judge may respond directly or through a third party to allegations in the media or elsewhere concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

N.M. Code. Jud. Cond. 21-210

Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, effective 1/1/2012.

Committee commentary. -

[1] This rule's restrictions on judicial speech are essential to the maintenance of the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary. The requirement that judges abstain from public comment regarding a pending or impending proceeding continues during any appellate process until final disposition.

[2] This rule does not prohibit a judge from commenting on proceedings in which the judge is a litigant in a personal capacity. The judge must not comment publicly on cases in which the judge is a litigant in an official capacity, such as a writ of mandamus.

[3] The judge should consider whether it may be preferable for a third party, rather than the judge, to respond or issue statements in connection with allegations concerning the judge's conduct in a matter.

[Adopted by Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, effective January 1, 2012.]

ANNOTATIONS Recompilations. - Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 11-8300-045, the former Judicial Code of Conduct was recompiled, effective January 1, 2012. See the table of corresponding rules for former rule numbers and the corresponding new rule numbers. JUDICIAL REPRIMANDS Making a statement likely to interfere with a fair hearing. - Where, after the stepchild of a magistrate judge was jailed by the district court for nonpayment of child support, the magistrate judge telephoned the district court judge, told the district court judge that the step-child was not a flight risk, and asked the district court judge to reduce the step-child's bond or let the step-child out of jail, the magistrate judge's telephone call to the district court judge had the potential to interfere with the lawful resolution of the release issue in the step-child's case and constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Naranjo, 2013-NMSC-026. Intervening in trial. - Where in a DWI trial, the judge stepped off the bench to assist an officer in presenting the officer's case and in sight and earshot of the jury, told the court manager that the defendant "blew a .3", the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Guillory, S.Ct. No. 31,920 (Filed December 7, 2010) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Abusing prestige of judicial office. - Where a municipal judge had private conversations with a contractor about the contractor's personal financial dispute with landowners who allegedly owned the contractor money for cleaning up the landowners' property; the judge called the landowners and left a message on the landowners' answering machine in which the judge identified himself as a judge and stated that the judge was calling about the financial dispute between them and the contractor, and that the judge wanted the matter cleared up; the judge subsequently wrote the landowners a letter on municipal stationery, using the judge's title and court name discussing the contractor's claim and indicating that a lawsuit would be filed if the contractor was not paid; two weeks later, the judge was assigned to preside over a nuisance action by the municipality concerning the land that the contractor had supposedly cleaned; and the judge accepted the case and issued a summons to the landowners that did not conform with the rules of procedure, the judge's conduct constituted willful misconduct in office. In re Ramirez, S.Ct. No. 31,664 (Filed June 26, 2009) (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation). Making campaign promise to provide assistance if elected. - Where, during the time a judge was a candidate for magistrate court judge, the judge told a landlord that the judge would help if the landlord had a problem in court; when the judge learned that the landlord was having trouble with a tenant, the judge reviewed the lease and advised the landlord to file suit after the judge was elected; the judge also explained how the landlord could excuse the other magistrate court judges to make sure the judge heard the case; after the judge was elected, the landlord filed suit and excused the other magistrate court judges; and at a hearing on the case, the judge became impatient with the landlord and filed a recusal, the judge violated the Code of Judicial Conduct, subjecting the judge to removal from office. In re Rodella, 2008-NMSC-050, 144 N.M. 617, 190 P.3d 338 (decided prior to the 2011 recompilation).