Opinion ID: 2640090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Landlord-Tenant Case

Text: {19} This matter had its origins in the period in 2006 when Judge Rodella was campaigning for election to the position of magistrate court judge in Rio Arriba County, the position from which he had resigned earlier in that same year. The Commission made the following findings. While campaigning, Judge Rodella visited the home of a married couple who lived in Chimayo. Judge Rodella asked for the couple's help in the upcoming election and said that he would help them if they ever had a problem in court. When he later learned from their daughter of a problem they were having with a tenant, he met with the couple again, reviewed their rental agreement, told them the contract looked good, and recommended that they file suit. Judge Rodella told the couple that they should wait until he was elected before filing their case and explained how they could excuse the other local magistrate judge to make sure he heard their case. After Judge Rodella was elected, the couple filed their complaint and excused the other judge. At the hearing on the case, however, Judge Rodella appeared impatient with the couple, particularly the wife, and recused himself. The couple then filed a complaint with the Commission. Subsequently, Judge Rodella sent a letter to the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)  the judicial agency responsible for administrative oversight of magistrate courts  informing the AOC Director that he suspected the husband had forged a document in the case. The Commission found that the letter initiated an investigation by the state police and that Judge Rodella had intended to harass the husband and prevent him from testifying before the Commission. {20} After reviewing the evidence in support of these findings, we are not persuaded that sufficient clear and convincing evidence in the record supports the Commission's finding that the purpose of Judge Rodella's letter to the AOC Director reporting a suspected forgery was to harass and intimidate the husband and prevent him from testifying. To support such a finding, the evidence needed to show that Judge Rodella knowingly intimidated or threatened the husband to prevent him from testifying. See UJI 14-2402 NMRA. {21} In this case there was no clear and convincing evidence that Judge Rodella intended to intimidate or harass when he wrote to the Director of the AOC  on the advice of his attorney and with the help of an employee of his attorney. Although the examiner attempted to make Judge Rodella admit that the letter asked the AOC to refer the alleged forgery to law enforcement, Judge Rodella denied this. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows: I am submitting this letter with the expectation that you will keep it in confidence other than sharing the information contained within it and/or the enclosed documents with an appropriate law enforcement or prosecutorial agency. Even if the letter is construed as a request for an investigation, we do not agree that such a request demonstrates an intent to intimidate. As a general principle, intent can be inferred from the circumstances. See State v. Hoeffel, 112 N.M. 358, 361, 815 P.2d 654, 657 (Ct.App.1991) (Intent can be proved by circumstantial evidence.). However, in this case, the inferences the Commission drew from the circumstances are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Judge Rodella's action in reporting a suspected forgery to the agency overseeing the magistrate courts shortly after being notified that he was being investigated by the Commission is not sufficient to support such a finding of an intent to intimidate. Because we hold that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of witness intimidation, we do not address whether Judge Rodella's right to notification of this charge was violated. {22} We conclude that the rest of the Commission's findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence, although we note confusion in the testimony of the Commission's witnesses about who initiated the discussions between the Chimayo couple and Judge Rodella and about who accompanied him on his visits. There was, however, sufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature for the Commission to find that Judge Rodella promised the couple he would help them in court with their landlord-tenant case and advised them on how to excuse the other magistrate judge. This evidence was corroborated by their excusal of the other judge. And although the couple's daughter testified somewhat inconsistently about when she spoke with Judge Rodella about her parents' problems with a renter, her testimony corroborated the essence of theirs. We also note that the couple's motivation for filing a complaint with the Commission was Judge Rodella's failure to follow through on his promise to assist them, further supports a finding that such a promise was made. {23} As in the domestic violence case, Judge Rodella's testimony in this case conflicted with the testimony of the other witnesses. Judge Rodella contested their version of the facts. He testified that when he was campaigning, he left a card at the couple's home, and that he subsequently visited them once, before the primary election. He denied ever having told the couple that he would help them with a court matter or that he discussed their landlord-tenant problem with them. While he acknowledged having spoken to the couple's daughter, he denied talking with her about her parents or their landlord-tenant problem. He also denied having advised the couple how to excuse the other local magistrate. {24} After conducting our independent review of the record, therefore, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the Commission's conclusions that Judge Rodella violated the following provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct: Rule 21-100 (requiring a judge to uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary); Rule 21-200(A) (requiring a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary); Rule 21-200(B) (prohibiting a judge from allowing family, social, or political relationships to influence the judge's conduct and judgment); Rule 21-300(B)(2) (requiring a judge to be faithful to the law and not be swayed by partisan interests); Rule 21-300(B)(7) (prohibiting a judge from initiating, permitting, or considering ex parte communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding); Rule 21-300(B)(11) (prohibiting a judge from making pledges, promises, or commitments, with respect to cases, that are inconsistent with a judge's impartial performance of his adjudicative duties); and Rule 21-700(B)(1) (requiring candidates for election to judicial office to maintain the dignity appropriate to the office and act in a manner consistent with the impartiality, integrity, and independence of the judiciary). Because Judge Rodella did recuse from the Martinez case, we are not persuaded that clear and convincing evidence supports a conclusion that he violated Rule 21-400(A)(1) (requiring a judge to recuse when the judge has a personal bias concerning a party or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding). {25} We emphasize that, in addition to the misconduct described above, Judge Rodella's credibility again was an issue. As the Commission observed, in order to believe Judge Rodella's version of events, it would have had to find that all the other witnesses in the matter had perjured themselves. The evidence persuades us, therefore, that Judge Rodella was not forthright in his testimony about his actions in this matter and that his actions constituted willful misconduct. {26} In addition to challenging the Commission's findings and conclusions in this matter, Judge Rodella argues that the Commission had no authority to investigate his conduct or to petition this Court to discipline him based on that conduct because he was not a judge. Specifically, Judge Rodella argues that the authority granted to the Commission in Article VI, Section 32 to investigate judicial misconduct and recommend discipline to this Court is limited to cases of willful misconduct in office, persistent failure or inability to perform a judge's duties, or habitual intemperance, and does not extend to authority to conduct that occurred when he was not a judge. Moreover, he argues that only those provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct addressing elections are relevant to his conduct during the campaign. See Rules 21-700, 21-800, 21-900, and 21-901. We are not persuaded that such a formalistic reading of Article VI, Section 32 is consistent with its purpose, which is `to achieve an efficient and well disciplined judicial system possessing the highest degree of integrity.' Espinosa, 2003-NMSC-017, ¶ 10, 134 N.M. 59, 73 P.3d 197 (quoting 1967 Report of the Constitutional Revision Commission at 88). {27} We acknowledge the difficulties facing magistrate judges, who must engage in what has been termed the rough-and-tumble of politics every four years and campaign for elected office. See NMSA 1978, § 45-1-3 (2000) (requiring magistrate judges to run for election every four years); see also Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 794, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002) (observing that campaigns for judicial elective office may foster disrespect for the legal system). However, our Code of Judicial Conduct applies, with very limited exceptions, to all candidates for judicial office, including candidates for positions on the magistrate court bench. See Rule 21-901. Thus, as a candidate for judicial office, Judge Rodella was required to comply with all provisions of the Code and uphold the integrity of the judiciary. {28} This Court has previously held that a judge can be disciplined for misconduct occurring during a previous term if that judge is subsequently re-elected, and that such acts of misconduct ... follow the judge to any subsequent judicial office. In re Romero, 100 N.M. 180, 183, 668 P.2d 296, 299 (1983). In this case, although Judge Rodella was not in office when he promised to rule in the Chimayo couple's favor and when he advised them how to excuse the other judge, his conduct affected the functioning of the judicial system, and that conduct undermines public confidence in an independent, impartial, and competent judiciary. For us to hold that conduct occurring during a campaign, which violates the Code of Judicial Conduct and which has a direct impact on the performance of a judge's adjudicative responsibilities, is immune from investigation by the Commission would be inconsistent with the purpose of Article VI, Section 32. Accordingly, we hold that, under the circumstances of this case, the Commission's investigation of Judge Rodella's conduct while campaigning, which had a direct impact on the judicial process, was authorized by the New Mexico Constitution.