Opinion
NO. 01-12-00380-CR
12-31-2013
KRISTEN ALEIA SIMPSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
On Appeal from the County Criminal Court at Law No 2
Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Case No. 1753959
MEMORANDUM OPINION
A jury convicted Kristen Aleia Simpson of the misdemeanor offense of driving while intoxicated. The trial court assessed punishment at 180 days' confinement and a $500 fine, suspended the sentence, and placed Simpson on one year of community supervision. Simpson's appeal raises six issues. In her first four issues, Simpson contends that the trial court abused its discretion in denying her challenges for cause against four veniremembers who each expressed a belief that police officers are more credible witnesses. In her fifth issue, Simpson argues that the trial court's refusal to remove from its bench a Mothers Against Drunk Driving plaque during the DWI trial deprived her of substantial rights. Finally, in her sixth issue, Simpson contends the administratively assigned recusal judge abused her discretion by denying Simpson's motion to recuse the trial judge for bias, as evidenced by the MADD plaque and an anti-drunk driving video previously loaded onto YouTube that includes comments by the trial judge.
Tex. Penal Code § 49.04 (West Supp. 2013).
We affirm.
Background
Simpson was involved in a two-car accident. Just before the accident, the driver of the car in front of Simpson's, William Pineda, noticed she was driving unsafely. When Pineda slowed for the car in front of him to turn, Simpson's car hit his twice from behind. Pineda testified that he spoke with Simpson immediately following the accident. Her eyes were red, and she said she felt dizzy. She apologized, offering to pay for the damage. Although she asked him not to call the police, he did.
Officer Zhang arrived and noted that Simpson had glassy, bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and a moderate odor of alcohol. He suspected that she was intoxicated and administered the Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus field sobriety test. He testified that she had six of six clues for intoxication during the HGN test.
Officer Zhang drove Simpson to Central Intox, where an evidence technician, Wooten, performed additional field sobriety tests and questioned Simpson. Wooten testified that Simpson told him she rear-ended Pineda because she could not react fast enough and that she had been drinking. When Wooten asked Simpson whether the alcohol affected her ability to drive, she replied that "apparently it did." Based on the physical indications of alcohol use, her performance on the field sobriety tests, and her statements while in custody, Simpson was charged with misdemeanor driving while intoxicated.
At the DWI trial, Simpson's counsel challenged for cause four of the veniremembers based on their statements that they felt police officers were more credible witnesses. Because the trial court denied the challenges for cause, Simpson had to use her peremptory strikes to prevent three of those veniremembers from being seated on the jury. The trial court denied Simpson's request for additional peremptory strikes, allowing one of the challenged veniremembers to serve on the jury.
During voir dire, Simpson's counsel questioned the veniremembers about a plaque leaning against the back wall behind the trial judge's chair. The veniremembers confirmed that they could tell the plaque said "MADD" and realized it was from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In front of the jury panel, Simpson requested the trial judge to remove the plaque, which he refused to do. During the trial—but outside of the presence of the jury—Simpson requested the trial judge recuse himself based on his failure to remove the plaque. The trial judge denied the motion, noting in his order that Simpson elected to have the court assess punishment which, he contended, was an indication she did not, in fact, believe him to be biased against her.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Simpson guilty of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated. The court sentenced her to 180 days' confinement, assessed a $500 fine, suspended the sentence, and placed Simpson on one year of community supervision. Simpson appealed.
Challenges for Cause
In her first through fourth issues, Simpson challenges the trial court's rulings on her challenges for cause. Four of the potential jurors—jurors number three, eight, thirteen, and fourteen—indicated during voir dire that they believed police officers were more credible than other categories of witnesses. Simpson's counsel questioned each of them about their beliefs. The trial court asked them additional questions. Simpson moved to strike the four veniremembers, and the trial court denied the motion. Both parties agree that Simpson preserved error to challenge the trial court's ruling. The State contends that none of the four veniremembers revealed an impermissible level of bias if the complete voir dire is considered versus isolated statements.
A. Standard of review
A bias or prejudice that substantially impairs a potential juror's ability to carry out his oath and court instructions in accordance with the law disqualifies him from jury service. See Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d 274, 295 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). If the potential juror's bias or prejudice is established as a matter of law, the trial court has no discretion but to disqualify that person from jury service. See Malone v. Foster, 977 S.W.2d 562, 564 (Tex. 1998). If, on the other hand, the potential juror makes a statement indicating a bias but agrees he or she will apply the law as instructed, then the trial court has discretion to deny the challenge for cause. See Feldman v. State, 71 S.W.3d 738, 744 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002).
The deference given the trial court's decision is even greater when the veniremember's statements are "ambiguous, vacillating, unclear, or contradictory." See Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d at 295-96 (stating that "particular deference" is given to trial courts to evaluate these veniremembers); Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744 ("Particular deference is given when the potential juror's answers are vacillating, unclear or contradictory"). Vacillation includes a statement indicating a bias toward one category of witness followed by a promise to listen to all witnesses before deciding credibility. See Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744-77. Similarly, an answer to a voir dire question that could be interpreted one way to show bias or another way that would not be subject to challenge is ambiguous and, therefore, left to the trial court's discretion. See Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 296-97 (holding trial court had discretion to assign meaning to veniremember's ambiguous statement).
A considerable amount of deference is appropriate because the trial judge is in the courtroom and in the best position to observe the jurors' demeanor and tone. See Gardner, 306 S.W.3d at 295-97; Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744 ("We give great deference to the trial court's decision because the trial judge is present to observe the demeanor of the venireperson and to listen to his tone of voice.")
B. The trial court did not abuse its discretion denying challenges for cause
Simpson argues that the four veniremembers "unequivocally stated that they would give more credibility to a police officer over another witness simply because they were a police officer" and, therefore, "demonstrated bias as a matter of law."
We review the entire voir dire record to determine if there is sufficient evidence to find bias as a matter of law by any of the four challenged veniremembers. See Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 744. This includes their answers to questions by all counsel as well as the court. See Anderson v. State, 633 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982); cf. Cortez v. HCCI-San Antonio, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 87, 91-92 (Tex. 2005) (rejecting argument that veniremember cannot be "rehabilitated" after indicating bias).
An example of deference towards police officer testimony that reaches the level of bias as a matter of law can be found in Hernandez v. State, 563 S.W.2d 947, 950 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). The attorney there asked a potential juror if she believed that police officers would not lie on the witness stand. The following exchange occurred between the attorney and veniremember:
Q: I am not talking about making a mistake, I am talking about telling a knowing willing falsehood from the witness stand.Id. at 950. The veniremember's firmly held conviction that police officers would never lie demonstrated a bias against the defendant and required her to be disqualified from jury service as a matter of law. See id.
A: I don't think a police officer would tell a falsehood from the witness stand.
Q: Under any circumstances?
A: No, I don't.
During Simpson's trial, potential juror number three stated that he was good friends with a police officer, he believed officers were more credible witnesses, and the officers' training caused their testimony to "carry [ ] more weight," in his opinion. However, after additional instruction from the trial court, he affirmed that he would not prejudge the credibility of any witness and would presume the defendant innocent.
Likewise, potential juror number eight began voir dire stating that he felt police officers had more credibility as witnesses. He explained that if he was unsure who to believe—after listening to all the testimony—he would go with the police officer's testimony because police officers are more credible. After the trial court explained the importance of waiting until a witness testifies to determine that witness's credibility, the potential juror agreed that he would not prejudge any witness.
Potential juror number thirteen gave a very similar explanation of his deference to police officers. Yet he later agreed that he would not prejudge the credibility of a police officer or any other witness. In fact, he clarified that he already changed his position when counsel explained to him the necessity of waiting:
Veniremember: Yes, sir. I did change my answer to I will listen to the testimony.
Court: Can you make me a promise right now you will not prejudge the credibility just because they're police officers?
Veniremember: I did understand that after they explained that. I would not prejudge somebody until they actually testified, that is true.
Finally, potential juror number fourteen explained his position as follows: "I would wait and listen to the testimony but being a trained police officer they would have my benefit of any doubt, if there was any doubt whatsoever. They would get the benefit of the doubt." After the trial court explained the importance of waiting to determine credibility, potential juror number fourteen agreed that he would wait for each witness to testify and would not prejudge any witness.
We hold that these statements by potential jurors number three, eight, thirteen, and fourteen were equivocal and, therefore, do not support a finding of bias as a matter of law. See Hernandez, 563 S.W.2d at 950. Therefore, the question before this Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the four motions to strike. See Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 749.
The Court of Criminal Appeals repeatedly has addressed challenges for cause against potential jurors who state a belief that police officers are more credible witnesses. See, e.g., Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 747; Ladd v. State, 3 S.W.3d 547, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999); Smith v. State, 907 S.W.2d 522, 530-31 (Tex. Crim. App. 1995); Jones v. State, 982 S.W.2d 386, 389 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). In doing so, that Court has refused to require complete impartiality. See Jones, 982 S.W.2d at 389. This is because it is human nature to give one category of witness a slight edge over another category of witness. See id. Jurors cannot be expected to set aside their natural skepticism during trial. See id. The Court explained:
[L]itigants are entitled to jurors who will be genuinely open-minded and persuadable, with no extreme or absolute positions regarding the credibility of any witness. [However, c]omplete impartiality cannot be realized as long as human beings are called upon to be jurors. No person sitting as a juror can completely remove his own experiences, beliefs, and values, however hard he may try.
Id.
Thus, a potential juror who says that he would tend to believe a police officer or doctor more than another witness may serve on a jury. See Ladd, 3 S.W.3d at 560. A potential juror who says he would give more credibility to the testimony of a Texas Ranger, likewise, may serve on a jury. See Smith, 907 S.W.2d at 530-31. As long as these veniremembers agree that they can follow the law as explained to them, regardless of their personal beliefs and leanings, it is within the trial court's discretion to find them suitable for jury service and deny the challenge for cause. See Feldman, 71 S.W.3d at 747; Davis v. State, 329 S.W.3d 798, 811-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) ("The proponent of a challenge for cause has the burden of establishing that the challenge is proper. The proponent does not meet this burden until he has shown that the venire member understood the requirements of the law and could not overcome his or her prejudice well enough to follow the law.") (internal citations omitted); cf. Cortez, 159 S.W.3d at 94 ("An initial 'leaning' is not disqualifying if it represents skepticism rather than an unshakeable conviction.").
None of these potential jurors stated firmly held convictions that police officers are always right or should always be believed. They each followed their statements regarding police officer credibility with assurances that they would not prejudge any witness but would follow the law as instructed. As a result, the trial court had discretion to determine whether these potential jurors exhibited sufficient bias to substantially impair their ability to apply the law. See Gardner v. State, 306 S.W.3d at 295; Davis, 329 S.W.3d at 807.
These statements, in the context of the entire voir dire record and all of the individual veniremember's answers, did not demonstrate adequate bias to find that the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motions to challenge for cause. Cf. Cortez, 159 S.W.3d at 93 ("[The juror] said he was 'willing to try' to make his decision based on the evidence and the law. That is all we can ask of any juror.")
We overrule Simpson's first, second, third, and fourth issues.
Display of MADD Plaque
In her fifth and sixth issues, Simpson complains that the trial judge refused to remove a small MADD plaque that was leaning against the back wall behind the judge's chair during her DWI trial. Simpson objected to the display of the plaque and requested the trial court remove it for the duration of trial. The trial court denied the request.
Simpson obtained agreement from the potential jurors during voir dire that they could see the plaque and believed it was from MADD. Subsequently, Simpson moved that the trial judge recuse himself, arguing that the he did not appear to be impartial. The motion was denied. Simpson presented another recusal motion to a judge administratively assigned to hear her motion. That motion also was denied: "The motion to recuse is denied, but I would strongly hope that the Judge would do the right thing and take down the plaque." Simpson presents two challenges to these adverse rulings.
A. Simpson's substantial rights not affected
In her fifth issue, Simpson argues that error in displaying the plaque during her DWI trial violated statutory law and the Code of Judicial Conduct. She contends that the trial judge's impartiality reasonably was in question and his refusal to remove the plaque adversely affected her substantial rights. Even assuming Simpson is correct that the refusal to remove the plaque was error, we do not reverse if the alleged error was harmless. See TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b); Sells v. State, 121 S.W.3d 748, 764 n.69 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
An error is harmless if it fails to affect a defendant's substantial rights, considering the entire record. Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637 & n.8 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); Motilla v. State, 78 S.W.3d 352, 355 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002); TEX. R. APP. P. 44.2(b) (stating that non-constitutional error that does not affect a defendant's substantial rights must be disregarded). A substantial right is not affected if the reviewing court has "fair assurance that the error did not influence the jury, or had but a slight effect." Solomon v. State, 49 S.W.3d 356, 365 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001) (citation omitted). If, on the other hand, there is a "grave doubt" that the result was free from the substantial influence of the evidence, then the defendant's substantial rights were affected. See Burnett v. State, 88 S.W.3d 633, 637-38 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (citation omitted). "Grave doubt" means "in the judge's mind, the matter is so evenly balanced that he feels himself in virtual equipoise as to the harmlessness of the error." Id.
Here, some jurors stated that they could tell the plaque was from MADD; however, the record does not indicate that anything else written on the plaque was legible from their location in the courtroom. Jurors indicated that they already were aware of the MADD organization's existence and purpose. Without any indication in the record that the presence of the plaque had an influence on the jurors' decision-making, their impression of the trial judge, or the outcome of the proceeding, we conclude that the trial judge's refusal to remove the plaque, even if error, was harmless.
We overrule issue five.
B. Reviewing judge did not abuse discretion by denying motion to recuse
Simpson argues in her sixth issue that the judge administratively assigned to hear her recusal motion abused her discretion by denying the motion. The hearing occurred midway through the trial; the judge denied the motion.
1. Standard of review
An order denying a motion to recuse is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. De Leon v. Aguilar, 127 S.W.3d 1, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004); Arnold v. State, 853 S.W.2d 543, 544 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993). The court abuses its discretion only if its ruling is outside the "zone of reasonable disagreement" or fails to apply proper guiding rules and principles. Kemp v. State, 846 S.W.2d 289, 306 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992); Abdygapparova v. State, 243 S.W.3d 191, 198 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007, pet. ref'd). We review the entire record from the recusal hearing; our review is done case-by-case and is fact intensive. See Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 198 (noting that review of denial of recusal motion entered at beginning of trial cannot include evidence of trial judge's subsequent actions during trial); Roman v. State, 145 S.W.3d 316, 319 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, pet. ref'd). Absent a clear showing to the contrary, we presume the trial court was neutral and detached. See Steadman v. State, 31 S.W.3d 738, 741 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000, pet. ref'd).
2. The rules governing recusal
Rule 18b(b) provides that a judge must be recused if "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or "the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party." TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b)(1-2). Rule 18b(b)(1) is a general rule requiring that a judge objectively appear to be impartial, which he fails to do if he "harbors an aversion, hostility or disposition of a kind that a fair-minded person could not set aside when judging the dispute." Gaal v. State, 332 S.W.3d 448, 453 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 558, 114 S. Ct. 1147 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring)); TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b)(1). Rule 18b(b)(2) is more specific. It requires a judge not to have actual, personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or the subject matter of the litigation. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b)(2).
The party seeking recusal must establish that a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances involved, would have doubts as to the impartiality of the judge. See Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 305; Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 198. The evidence must be sufficient to overcome the presumption of judicial impartiality. See Durrough v. State, 620 S.W.2d 134, 143 (Tex. Crim. App. 1981); Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 199. It is a "high standard." Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 199. Further, the bias must be "of such nature, and to such extent, as to deny the defendant due process of law." Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 305; see also Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 198.
Recusal generally is not required when the judge is accused of a personal bias based solely on his judicial rulings, remarks or actions. See Gaal, 332 S.W.3d at 453. However, when the judge's remarks reveal an opinion based on extra-judicial (sometimes referred to as "personal") information, recusal could be warranted. See id. In either case, if the comments or actions reveal "such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible," then recusal is required. See id. (quoting Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555).
3. Simpson's allegations of bias and partiality
At the hearing, Simpson argued that recusal was proper and that a reasonable person would have doubts about the trial judge's impartiality for three reasons: (1) the MADD plaque displayed during her DWI trial appeared to be an endorsement of that organization by the court; (2) the display of the plaque was a violation of various Canons of Judicial Conduct—Canons 2B, 3B(5), and 4A(1)—all of which concern impartiality and bias; and (3) a previously posted YouTube video that was said to include the judge and discuss the perils of drunk driving evidenced an "improper alignment" with the prosecution. In addition to her general argument that the plaque was improper, she specifically complains that her request to remove the plaque was denied in front of the jury, which she alleges created an appearance of partiality.
Canon 2B: "A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others . . . ." Canon 3B(5): "A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice." Canon 4A(1): "A judge shall conduct all of the judge's extra-judicial activities so that they do not: cast reasonable doubt on the judge's capacity to act impartially as a judge . . . ." TEX. CODE JUD. CONDUCT, Canons 2B, 3B(5), and 4A(1), reprinted in TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., tit. 2, subtit. G, app. B (West 2013).
--------
During the recusal hearing, Simpson recounted her requests to the trial judge to remove the plaque, as well as his refusal to do so. She offered as evidence photographs showing the location and general visibility of the plaque by the jurors. Then she summarized the veniremembers' answers to her voir dire questions concerning the MADD plaque.
The State countered that the plaque was not very visible. Moreover, no potential juror indicated that they questioned the trial judge's impartiality; they simply acknowledged that they noticed the plaque.
4. Bias and partiality not sufficiently shown to find abuse of discretion by recusal judge
From the arguments and evidence presented at the recusal hearing, it is clear that Simpson did not claim to have been treated unfairly by the trial judge in any aspect of her case other than by his refusal to remove the plaque and the existence of the YouTube video. Her complaint is limited to these two items she alleges reveal bias and partiality.
Simpson's argument that the judge's ruling made in front of the jury demonstrates partiality is without merit. Judicial rulings almost always are inadequate to establish bias. See Gaal, 332 S.W.3d at 454 ("Generally, though, recusal is not required when based solely on judicial rulings, remarks or actions. These acts almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.") (citation omitted); Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 198 (holding that claims of bias and prejudice based on judicial rulings must show "deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible" and deny a party due process of law; noting that the rulings would have to somehow be wrongful or inappropriate, not just unfavorable to the complaining party) (citation omitted); Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 305 (requiring a showing that the bias denied due process of law).
Her other argument appears to allege an extra-judicial source of bias and partiality—the trial judge's apparent support from MADD as evidenced by the plaque in the courtroom. We find this claim to be analogous to cases in which trial courts have made extra-judicial statements regarding a category of offense or punishment. See Rosas v. State, 76 S.W.3d 771, 775 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, no pet.); Chastain v. State, 667 S.W.2d 791 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1983, pet. ref'd).
In Rosas, this Court held that the recusal judge did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion of a defendant charged with sexual assault. 76 S.W.3d at 775. The defendant alleged that the judge had a bias in favor of the prosecution in sex-abuse cases, been a member of the Children's Assessment Center's judicial counsel, and told the jury during voir dire that she "hates such cases." Id. The trial judge stated on the record:
Nobody likes these cases. I don't like standing up here and reading these allegations to you. I don't even like reading them. Nobody thinks that they want to sit and listen to this type of case . . . the Prosecutor doesn't love prosecuting these cases. The Defense probably doesn't love defending these cases. But here we are.Id. We held that the recusal judge did not abuse its discretion when it denied the recusal motion because these statements did not exhibit hostility towards the defendant sufficient to deny him due process of law. See id. These were comments about sexual assault cases as a general category of offense—unrelated to the question whether this particular defendant was guilty of sexual assault. See id. Further, the allegation that the judge had an improper affiliation with Children's Assessment Center did not require recusal because ethical violations, alone, will not mandate recusal of a trial judge. See id.; Gaal, 332 S.W.3d at 453.
Our sister court, likewise, has held that a judge's extra-judicial expression of personal views will not require reversal. Chastain, 667 S.W.2d at 796. There, the judge made statements on a television program that the death penalty should be invoked more often if it is to be an effective deterrent. See id. at 794. The program aired after some but not all jurors had been selected to decide Chastain's case, which involved a possible death sentence. See id. The defendant argued that the extra-judicial statements required the trial judge be recused. The appellate court disagreed:
The judge merely stated his personal views on the death penalty and its effect as a deterrent. He made no statements which indicated that he believed that appellant should receive the death penalty or that he would encourage this jury to [i]nvoke such a penalty . . . It is presumed that a judge will base his judgment upon the facts as they are developed at trial.Chastain, 667 S.W.2d at 796.
We conclude that the display of the MADD plaque to be similar to the judicial comments made in Rosas and Chastain. While the display of the plaque could be viewed as evidence the trial judge dislikes drunk driving, it was not a comment on this particular defendant's guilt or innocence and, therefore, did not demonstrate bias against Simpson. See Rosas, 76 S.W.3d at 775.
Simpson's evidence fails to overcome the presumption that the trial court was unbiased in presiding over her trial. See Steadman, 31 S.W.3d at 741. Further, she has not established judicial bias extreme enough to have deprived her due process of law. See Rosas, 76 S.W.3d at 774.
Simpson's alternative argument that the trial court's actions violated the Code of Judicial Conduct also is unavailing because such violations, even if proven, will not support recusal without more. See Gaal, 332 S.W.3d at 453. (citing Wesbrook v. State, 29 S.W.3d 103 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000)).
Given the abuse-of-discretion standard, the question before this Court is not whether it is advisable to display a MADD plaque in a courtroom during a DWI trial or whether, in our view, the trial judge should have obliged defense counsel's request to take in down. Instead—when reviewing a denial of a motion to recuse— the issues before the appellate court are whether the reviewing judge (1) followed appropriate guiding rules and principles to analyze the recusal motion, and (2) reached a decision, based on information presented at the hearing, that was within the "zone of reasonable disagreement." See Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 306; Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 197-98. To the extent the judge's refusal to remove the plaque supports recusal, it falls within the zone of reasonable disagreement and, thus, within the reviewing judge's discretion whether to deny the motion. See Kemp, 846 S.W.2d at 306; Abdygapparova, 243 S.W.3d at 197-98.
Finally, we reject Simpson's arguments that the judge's statement about drunk driving in a YouTube video required his recusal. Simpson made the YouTube video available to the recusal judge to review, but never played it or offered it into evidence. The result is that it is not before us and, without it, we cannot know the exact statements made by the trial judge or their context.
We overrule Simpson's sixth issue.
Conclusion
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Harvey Brown
Justice
Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Sharp, and Brown. Justice Sharp, dissenting. Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).