Opinion ID: 1417789
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Timeliness of Disqualification

Text: The affidavit of disqualification directed to Judge Sanchez was filed after the first trial and the first appeal, which was several years after the time had expired under § 21-5-9 within which to disqualify a judge. Demers contends that the limitation in this statute should be read by this Court to mean that the time starts to run when the party who later seeks to disqualify the judge is given notice that the particular judge will try the case on its merits. To rule otherwise, Demers suggests, is to admit that, in cases such as this one, there is no method by which a judge, whom the moving party thinks to be partial, can be removed from the case without a hearing and actual proof of disqualification. Section 21-5-9 provides for an affidavit of disqualification to be filed within ten days after the cause is at issue or within ten days after the time for filing a demand for jury trial has expired, whichever is later. It does not say within ten days after a new judge is designated to hear the case. The latter provision might be just and desirable, but it cannot be read into the statute. The provision for disqualification is not a court-made rule. It is a substantive right granted by the legislature, Beall v. Reidy, 80 N.M. 444, 457 P.2d 376 (1969). We have construed it strictly according to its plain language. See State v. Hernandez, 89 N.M. 698, 556 P.2d 1174 (1976). The Court of Appeals was in error in holding that Judge Sanchez was properly disqualified.