Title: Doe v. State

State: new-mexico

Issuer: New Mexico Supreme Court

Document:

570 P.2d 589 (1977) 91 N.M. 51 John DOE, a child, Petitioner, v. STATE of New Mexico, Respondent. No. 11574. Supreme Court of New Mexico. September 21, 1977. Bruce P. Moore, Albuquerque, for petitioner. Toney Anaya, Atty. Gen., Roderick A. Door, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent. SOSA, Justice. The Honorable Joseph C. Ryan, District Judge of the Children's Court of the Second Judicial District, removed himself from a case involving delinquent acts on the part of a minor. Thereafter, by consent of the parties, Mary Walters was appointed to sit as judge designate of the case; and, while sitting as judge designate, she dismissed the petition alleging delinquency. The State appealed the dismissal to the Court of Appeals. That court then instructed the parties *590 to brief the issue of Mary Walters' authority to preside over the case, and held that she acted without the requisite authority. The State's petition was filed in January 1977, alleging certain delinquent acts by the defendant minor. The minor was arraigned before the children's court, Judge Ryan presiding. Judge Ryan ruled on various motions on March 7, 1977. Trial was scheduled before Judge Ryan on March 16, 1977, but because of motions granted the case was twice rescheduled. It was finally heard on March 23, 1977. The following stipulations were entered into by the parties: The Court of Appeals, in essence, held that since Judge Ryan only removed himself from the case and was never properly disqualified, then Mary Walters' appointment as a judge pro tempore was invalid, and therefore she was without authority to preside over the case. The New Mexico procedure for the appointment of a judge pro tempore is embodied in N.M.Const., art. VI, § 15 which states in part: The issue then becomes: Did Judge Ryan's act of orally removing himself from this case substantially comply with our laws which address the disqualification of judges? The answer to this question determines whether Mary Walters had authority to preside in the case. Section 21-5-8, N.M.S.A. 1953, in essence, allows for the disqualification of a district court judge by the filing of an affidavit from one of the parties when the party believes the judge cannot preside over the action with impartiality. This section only addresses itself to the issue of a party disqualifying a judge and it appears to be the exclusive method by which a party may disqualify the presiding judge. A companion to the above constitutional section is N.M.Const., art. VI, § 18 which states: The New Mexico Code of Judicial Conduct, in portions of Canons 2 and 3, sets *591 forth reasons which allow judges to disqualify themselves. Canon 2(B) [§ 16-11-2(B), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1975 Supp.)], states: Canon 3(C) [§ 16-11-3(C), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, 1975 Supp.)] states: Therefore, if a judge should avoid any hint of impropriety in his activities, he should use his discretion and remove himself from a particular case when he believes he will not be able to remain impartial. The State urges "that the disqualification of the trial judge must either be by affidavit of disqualification pursuant to Section 21-5-8, N.M.S.A. 1953, or based upon constitutional grounds." Moruzzi v. Federal Life & Casualty Co., 42 N.M. 35, 75 P.2d 320 (1938). The State also contends that "[t]he record below is also silent as to whether Judge Ryan removed himself because of any constitutional grounds ... and because of this it is assumed, for purposes of this argument, that no constitutional grounds are claimed for his `removal.'" We do not agree with this assumption. In reading the sections advanced by the State, nowhere is it stated that a judge must file an affidavit or order stating the reasons for his recusal. N.M.Const., art. VI, §§ 15 & 18; and § 21-5-8, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4). Nor do we wish to insist that the Constitution mandates this by implication. Furthermore, the State addresses neither §§ 16-11-2(B) nor 16-11-3(C), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl. Vol. 4), which allow judges, at their discretion, to voluntarily disqualify themselves. In State v. Allen Superior Court No. 3, 246 Ind. 366, 206 N.E.2d 139, 143 (1965), that court stated in dictum: This language comports with past practice in New Mexico since many times judges recuse themselves without stating reasons for their voluntary disqualification. See generally, State ex rel. Armijo v. Lujan, 45 N.M. 103, 111 P.2d 541 (1941). A fortiori, if judges recuse themselves they must have valid reasons for doing so, and it is praiseworthy that they comply with the Canons of Judicial Conduct rather than risk tainting the image of impartiality which is entrusted to the bench. Therefore, in reviewing all of the sections involving disqualification of judges either voluntary or through one of the litigants we decide today that the word "disqualified" includes withdrawal or recusal by a judge on his own motion, whether or not he states reasons for such withdrawal or recusal. In the State's reply brief it asserts that "the framers of our Constitution knew exactly the meaning of `disqualified', and, in fact, meant for it to be used in the strict sense." No authority is cited for such a proposition, and therefore, we will not bind ourselves to such a strict interpretation. To assume that when a judge "removes" himself from one case the situation is distinguishable from an instance when he "disqualifies" himself from another is, in essence, a distinction without a difference. Furthermore, Judge Ryan should not be held to stipulation number 4, which counsel for both sides agreed upon, since it was framed by counsel only and Judge Ryan may have disagreed with the wording. Nevertheless, we choose to read that stipulation *592 as meaning "without (formal) disqualification or recusal" since a judge may recuse himself from a case without filing an order reciting his reasons for doing so. For the Court of Appeals to agree with the State's argument places form over substance, and therefore, we must reverse. The State lost in the lower court and should not be allowed to get a second bite of the apple by having a new trial. Since we have decided that Judge Ryan disqualified himself in the action, pursuant to N.M.Const., art. VI, § 15, the parties, therefore, validly agreed upon Mary Walters to act as judge pro tempore. Since she acted with proper authority, the State cannot now contest such authority vested in her by the Constitution and the parties' agreement. Since this issue is dispositive of the case we have chosen not to discuss the other issues raised. We, therefore, reverse the Court of Appeals' decision, that Judge Pro Tempore Mary Walters was without jurisdiction to hear the case, and remand this case to them to hear the appeal on its merits. McMANUS, C.J., and EASLEY, PAYNE and FEDERICI, JJ., concur.