NM Stat § 3-10-7 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 3 - Municipalities|Article 10 - Municipal Officers; Qualifications; Compensation; Removal from Office|Section 3-10-7 - Officers; removal for malfeasance in office; complaint; jurisdiction of district court; hearing; serving notice.

Any person elected or appointed to an elective office of a municipality may be removed for malfeasance in office by the district court upon complaint of the mayor or governing body of the municipality. Any such officer is entitled to a hearing at a time fixed by the court after not less than ten days' notice of such proceedings by service, as in the case of summons in civil actions, with a copy of the complaint filed in the proceedings. History: 1953 Comp., § 14-9-8, enacted by Laws 1965, ch. 300. ANNOTATIONSCross references. — For removal of local officers, see 10-4-1 NMSA 1978 et seq. "Malfeasance" defined. — The term "malfeasance" has been variously defined as a comprehensive term which includes any wrongful conduct affecting performance of official duties, or as a wrongful act which the actor had no legal right to do, or any wrongful conduct which affects, interrupts or interferes with performance of official duties, or an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law or which a person ought not to do at all, or the unjust performance of some act, which party performing it has no right, or doing an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful and which an officer has no authority to do, and if the act is discretionary it must have been done with an improper or corrupt motive. Arellano v. Lopez, 1970-NMSC-058, 81 N.M. 389, 467 P.2d 715. Proof required of malfeasance. — Malfeasance should never be inferred or elected officials removed from the office to which the public has elected them without strong proof of willful and knowing wrongdoing. Arellano v. Lopez, 1970-NMSC-058, 81 N.M. 389, 467 P.2d 715. When the people of any municipality, in a duly constituted election, select certain individuals to conduct their local government, those representatives of the people may be removed from office only upon showing of a perverseness which amounts to criminality or culpable indifference to their official duties. Arellano v. Lopez, 1970-NMSC-058, 81 N.M. 389, 467 P.2d 715. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 56 Am. Jur. 2d Municipal Corporations, Counties, and Other Political Subdivisions §§ 304 to 326. Power to remove public officer without notice and hearing, 99 A.L.R. 336. Power of courts or judges in respect of removal of officers, 118 A.L.R. 170. Validity of removal or discharge of governmental officer or employee as affected by absence of member of board or commission from hearing, 171 A.L.R. 175. Conviction of offense under federal law or law of another state or country as vacating accused's holding of state or local office or as ground of removal, 20 A.L.R.2d 732. Injunction as remedy against removal of public officer, 34 A.L.R.2d 554. Assertion of immunity as ground for removing or discharging public officer or employee, 44 A.L.R.2d 789. Infamous crime or one involving moral turpitude constituting disqualification to hold public office, 52 A.L.R.2d 1314. Conviction under federal law or law of another state or county, effect on right to vote or hold public office, 39 A.L.R.3d 303. Misconduct during previous term, removal of public officer for, 42 A.L.R.3d 691. 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations §§ 419 to 441.