Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

May 12, 2010

NO. 32,334

INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE


NOS. 2010-035 thru 2010-055

IN THE MATTER OF VICTORIA J. GRANT,


Metropolitan Court Judge, Bernalillo County, New Mexico

ORDER

WHEREAS, in Article VI, Section 32, of the New Mexico

Constitution, the people of New Mexico created the Judicial Standards

Commission to investigate complaints against judges, conduct hearings,

and make recommendations to the New Mexico Supreme Court to

discipline or remove a judge for good cause established in evidentiary

hearings at the Commission level;

WHEREAS, Article VI, Section 32, mandates that all papers filed

with the Commission and all proceedings before the Commission are

confidential and remain so until the record is filed by the Commission in

this Court;

WHEREAS, this Court, pursuant to its constitutional powers of

superintending control of the judicial branch provided in Article VI,

1
Section 3, promulgated Rule 27-201 NMRA, which provides for a pre-

hearing temporary suspension of a judge where it is deemed inappropriate

that the judge continue to exercise judicial functions pending the due

process determination of the validity of charges filed before the

Commission, not as punishment before a merits hearing, but as a

precautionary measure to protect the integrity of the judiciary;

WHEREAS, this Court promulgated Rule 27-104(B), which provides

that “[t]o protect the privileged and confidential nature of proceedings

that are pending before the Commission as required by Article VI, Section

32, of the New Mexico Constitution, any papers filed in the Supreme Court

before the conclusion of formal proceedings in the Commission shall be

automatically sealed . . . and shall not be disclosed to anyone . . . without

further order of the court”; that “the conclusion of formal proceedings

occurs when the Commission holds an evidentiary hearing and issues

findings, conclusions, and a recommendation of discipline based on that

evidence”; and that “petitions for temporary suspension and responses

filed pursuant to Rule 27-201 NMRA are subject to the automatic sealing

provisions of this paragraph and shall remain sealed and confidential

unless the Court grants the petition”;

2
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2010, petitioner, Judicial Standards

Commission, filed a Rule 27-201(A)(4) NMRA petition for immediate

temporary suspension of respondent, Metropolitan Court Judge Victoria

Grant, from judicial office prior to any evidentiary hearing before the

Commission and before any findings, conclusions, and recommendations

had been made on the unproven allegations, and accordingly filed its

petition and supporting documents under seal, as required by Rule 27-

104(B);

WHEREAS, this Court thereupon requested a response from

respondent to show cause why the Commission’s petition should not be

granted and scheduled a hearing before the Court on May 4, 2010;

WHEREAS, on April 29, 2010, the Commission and respondent

jointly filed in this Court under seal a Stipulation to Immediate Temporary

Suspension, providing that respondent would be temporarily suspended

from judicial office pending completion of the Commission’s proceedings,

that the first ninety (90) days of any suspension would be with pay, and

that the Court should review the matter after ninety (90) days to

determine whether the pay should continue, all in lieu of the adversarial

hearing scheduled for May 4, and in lieu of any ruling by the Court on any

3
grounds for suspension;

WHEREAS, on April 30, 2010, this Court accepted the Stipulation for

Immediate temporary Suspension as an agreement by the parties that

respondent be suspended under the conditions stipulated by the parties,

without the necessity of proceeding with the May 4th hearing;

WHEREAS, it having appeared to the Court that neither the

stipulation nor any other filings of the parties addressed the issue whether

it would be lawful and appropriate to unseal the materials submitted

under seal by the parties, the Court having advised the parties that it

proposed to enter an order unsealing the files pursuant to the provisions

of Rule 27-104(B), which provides that the pre-adjudication files shall

remain sealed “unless the Court grants the petition” for summary

suspension, and the Court having set oral argument for Monday, May 17,

on the question of unsealing after receiving objections and a request to be

heard by counsel for respondent, and the Court being sufficiently advised,

Chief Justice Charles W. Daniels, Justice Patricio M. Serna, Justice Petra

Jimenez Maes, Justice Richard C, Bosson, and Justice Edward L. Chavez

concurring;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the parties are requested

4
to address in their written and oral arguments, among any other

considerations that may be deemed pertinent to this Court’s decision, the

following:

(1) the extent to which Article VI, Section 32, of the New
Mexico Constitution and this Court’s Rule 27-104(B), do or do
not provide this Court any lawful discretion in deciding
whether or not to unseal the file;

(2) the extent to which the unsealing provisions of Rule 27-


104(B) may differ in applicability depending on whether a
temporary suspension has been ordered as a result of a
stipulation of the parties instead of a ruling on a contested
petition for suspension;

(3) the extent to which Article VI, Section 32, mandating


confidentiality of unadjudicated allegations before the
Commission and Rule 27-104(B), providing for unsealing of
materials related to those unadjudicated allegations upon
granting a petition for temporary suspension, may or may not
be in conflict; and

(4) the extent to which the policy considerations underlying


those provisions of law should guide the Court in exercising
any lawful discretion this Court may have in the matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties should be prepared at the

May 17th hearing to argue the merits of the pending Petition for

Temporary Suspension, in the event that the resolution of any of the issues

with regard to unsealing the record should result in any party’s successful

motion to withdraw the stipulation previously approved by this Court.

5
IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS, Honorable Charles W. Daniels, Chief Justice


of the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico, and
the seal of said Court this 12th day of May, 2010.

(SEAL) _______________________________________________
Kathleen Jo Gibson, Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court
of the State of New Mexico

Вам также может понравиться