Opinion
NO. 2017 KW 0145
03-16-2017
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. SCOTT G. MEREDITH
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs, 20th Judicial District Court, Parish of West Feliciana, No. 15-WFLN-251. BEFORE: WELCH, CRAIN AND HOLDRIDGE, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. It is well-settled that a judge is presumed to be impartial. State v. LaCaze, 2016-0234 (La. 12/16/16), 208 So.3d 856, 864 (per curiam). The defendant did not establish any grounds for recusal of Judge Carmichael. Particularly, he has not established that Judge Carmichael is unable to conduct a fair and impartial trial in this case in which an employee of the clerk's office for the district Judge Carmichael serves will be called as a state witness. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 671. Notably, Judge Carmichael did not testify in this matter. The judge appointed to preside over the motion to recuse abused his discretion in granting the motion based solely on the argument regarding the witness's employment. Accordingly, the ruling granting the motion to recuse is reversed, and this matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
JEW
WJC
Holdridge, J. I respectfully dissent, and would deny the writ for the following reasons. A party in a criminal proceeding may reguest that a trial judge be recused by filing a written motion alleging one or more of the grounds for recusal under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure article 671(A). If a valid ground for recusation is set forth in the motion, the judge shall either recuse himself, or refer the motion for hearing to another judge or to a judge ad hoc, as provided in Article 675. See La. Code Crim. P. art. 674. In this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court appointed Judge White as judge ad hoc to hear the defendant's motion to recuse. It is clear that even when a statutory ground for recusal under article 671 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not exist, a trial judge should recuse himself under Canon 3(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct which states, in pertinent part: "A judge should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." See also In re Lemoine, 96-2116 (La. 1/14/97), 686 So.2d 837, 845. The issue presented before this Court is whether a judge ad hoc who has been appointed to preside over a recusal motion may recuse a trial judge when, in the opinion of the judge ad hoc, the impartiality of the trial judge sought to be recused might "reasonably be questioned." In this case, Judge White did not find any actual bias or prejudice on the part of Judge Carmichael, and no evidence of such was introduced or proven at the recusal hearing. However, the facts introduced by the defense did show that the State's main witness in this case is currently a full-time employee of the West Feliciana Parish Clerk's Office and works in the criminal division of the same court presided over by Judge Carmichael. Given these facts, Judge White found that a criminal defendant, who is charged with a very serious felony offense, may reasonably question the impartiality of Judge Carmichael. While Judge White found, and I agree, that "Judge Carmichael's integrity in his community ... is unimpeachable," the test under Canon 3(C) is not whether any actual bias or prejudice is shown, but whether the defendant might reasonably question the impartiality of the trial judge. It is reasonable to believe that a criminal defendant would question the impartiality of any ruling made by the trial judge in this hearing when the main witness is a deputy clerk in the criminal division of that court. As stated in Canon 2(A): "A judge shall ... at all times act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." The decision of Judge White to recuse Judge Carmichael promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. The trial judge and the judge ad hoc hearing the recusal motion are both bound by the Canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Even though a ground for recusal under article 671 was not proven, Judge White was correct in his ruling which followed the mandates of Canon 3(C) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which is binding on all judges in this state. Accordingly, he did not abuse his discretion in granting the defense's motion for recusal of the trial judge. COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT /s/_________
DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT