The New Mexico Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned the 2003 rape and bribery conviction of a former Espa\u00f1ola judge because judges are exempt from the statute under which he was convicted.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve known in I wrote at the time for the Las Cruces Sun-News that the situation revealed a major flaw in state law. The overturning of Maestas\u2019 conviction furthers that argument and should prompt legislators to act.<\/p>\n Galvan resigned from the bench in May 2005 while battling charges that he raped and solicited a bribe from a woman in August 2004. After two hung juries, prosecutors dropped the charges.<\/p>\n After the first trial on rape and bribery charges ended, special prosecutor Kathleen Wright of Wright said at the time that charge \u201cmore accurately reflects what happened to the victim.\u201d<\/p>\n But District Judge Stephen Bridgforth tossed the charge after Galvan\u2019s attorney discovered that the statute specifically exempts judges. That happened days before the trail began and gave Wright little time to adapt.<\/p>\n The Governmental Conduct Act that includes the official acts prohibited statute criminalizes using public office to obtain favors. But judges are excluded from the act\u2019s definition of public officers and employees.<\/p>\n Bridgforth\u2019s dismissal brought the issue to the attention of the Attorney General\u2019s office. The AG, not Maestas\u2019 attorney, raised the issue with the high court. Though the AG argued that the statute should apply to judges, it raised the issue to get clarification on the statute\u2019s meaning.<\/p>\n Now it\u2019s crystal clear.<\/p>\n What\u2019s never been apparent is why the Legislature exempted judges. I asked Legislative Council Services in 2005 to research the issue, and it came up empty handed.<\/p>\n