The following shall be causes for removal of any officer belonging to the class mentioned in the preceding section [10-4-1 NMSA 1978]:
A. conviction of any felony or of any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude;
B. failure, neglect or refusal to discharge the duties of the office, or failure, neglect or refusal to discharge any duty devolving upon the officer by virtue of his office;
C. knowingly demanding or receiving illegal fees as such officer;
D. failure to account for money coming into his hands as such officer;
E. gross incompetency or gross negligence in discharging the duties of the office;
F. any other act or acts, which in the opinion of the court or jury amount to corruption in office or gross immorality rendering the incumbent unfit to fill the office.
HISTORY:
Laws 1909, ch. 36, § 2; Code 1915, § 3955; C.S. 1929, § 96-106; 1941 Comp., § 10-304; 1953 5-3-4.
Notes to Decisions
Generally.
Removal contemplated by the word “removed” in former 1915 Code § 3955, (now this section) refers to ouster from office of an officer under the provisions of the statute authorizing removals for misconduct, and N.M. Const. art. 20, § 2 clearly intended to permit the immediate effective removal from office of all officers of the class mentioned in former 1915 Code, § 3955 (now this section) who were found guilty of misconduct sufficient to oust them from office. Haymaker v. State, 1917-NMSC-005, 22 N.M. 400, 163 P. 248, 1917 N.M. LEXIS 5 (N.M. 1917).
Definitions.
Where a county commissioner committed acts of misconduct, for which the State sought his removal, the terms “office” and “in office,” as used in 10-4-1 NMSA 1978 and this section, meant during the current term for which the officer was elected or appointed so that misconduct committed during his previous term of office could not be considered; a public officer could not be removed for acts occurring in other terms of office than his current term. State v. Santillanes, 1982-NMSC-138, 99 N.M. 89, 654 P.2d 542, 1982 N.M. LEXIS 2980 (N.M. 1982).
Removal.
Governor of the Territory of New Mexico lacked the authority under the Organic Act Establishing the Territory of New Mexico § 3 to remove a lawfully elected county sheriff from office. Territory ex rel. Hubbell v. Armijo, 1907-NMSC-013, 14 N.M. 205, 89 P. 267, 1907 N.M. LEXIS 24 (N.M. 1907).
OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY GENERAL
Authority over elected county officials.
A county commission or county council does not have any general superintending authority over other elected county officials. Elected county officials who fail to perform their office’s duties are subject to removal, civil suit, or criminal prosecution if they violate the law. 1987 N.M. Op. Att'y Gen. No. 87-18, 1987 N.M. AG LEXIS 68.