Case Title: Matter of Haddad

Citation: 128 Ariz. 490, 627 P.2d 221

Docket Number: 

State: arizona

Court: Arizona Supreme Court

Date: 1981-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
128 Ariz. 490 (1981) 627 P.2d 221 In the Matter of Kelly HADDAD, Justice of the Peace, Pinal County, Arizona. No. JUD-4. Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. March 26, 1981. *491 Bruce A. Burke, Tucson, Atty. for Commission on Judicial Qualifications. Gerald S. Maltz, Tucson, Atty. for respondent. CAMERON, Justice. The Arizona Commission on Judicial Qualifications found that the respondent, Kelly Haddad, Justice of the Peace, Pinal County, Arizona, violated Canons One, Two and Three of the Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 45, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S., and Article 6.1, § 4 of the Constitution of the State of Arizona, and censure was recommended. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution and Rule 11 of the Rules of Procedure for the Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 17A A.R.S. This is the first time we have been called to write upon findings and recommendations of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications since it was created by constitutional amendment approved by the voters on 3 November 1970. This then is a case of first impression. Fortunately, there is adequate and generally consistent case law from other jurisdictions, as well as Standards Relating to Judicial Discipline and Disability Retirement adopted by the American Bar Association in 1978 to guide us in reaching our decision. National Center for Professional Responsibility and the American Bar Association, Professional Discipline for Lawyers and Judges (1979). See Judicial Discipline and Disability Symposium, 54 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 1 (1977). Judicial discipline is analogous to lawyer discipline in that both lawyer discipline commissions and judicial qualification commissions can only recommend to the Supreme Court the disposition to be made in each case of discipline. While we will give serious consideration to the findings of the attorney discipline committee, we must also make an independent determination of the facts of the case, In re Stewart, 121 Ariz. 243, 589 P.2d 886 (1979); In re Lurie, 113 Ariz. 95, 546 P.2d 1126 (1976), and we are the ultimate trier of the facts as well as the law. In re Moore, 110 Ariz. 312, 518 P.2d 562 (1974). Likewise in judicial discipline matters, we must make an independent evaluation, or de novo review on the record, of the evidence and recommendations of the Commission on Judicial Qualifications. In re Cieminski, 270 N.W.2d 321 (N.D. 1978). The purpose of judicial discipline is not to punish the individual judge, but to maintain the high standards of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice. In re Diener, 268 Md. 659, 304 A.2d 587 (1973), cert. denied 415 U.S. 989, 94 S. Ct. 1586, 39 L. Ed. 2d 885 (1974). Judicial discipline protects the public and the integrity of the judicial process and is a balancing of the need for an independent judiciary with the necessity for removal of those who do not measure up to the high standards required of a person holding judicial office. In re LaMotte, 341 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 1977). As such, the proceeding is neither civil nor criminal, In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 237 S.E.2d 246 (1977), but sui generis. In re Cieminski, supra. Neither should judicial discipline be used as a substitute for appeal: The burden of proof in judicial discipline is by clear and convincing evidence: Article 6.1 of the Arizona Constitution provides for the establishment of a judicial qualifications commission and the article is similar to constitutional provisions enacted by a majority of the states since the first constitutional provision was adopted by the California voters in 1960. See Schoenbaum, A Historical Look At Judicial Discipline, 54 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 1 (1977); Gillis & Fieldman, Michigan's Unitary System of Judicial Discipline: A Comparison With Illinois' Two Tier Approach, 54 Chi.-Kent L.Rev. 117 (1977). Our Constitution reads: The Code of Judicial Conduct adopted 16 August 1972 by the American Bar Association has been adopted by the Arizona Supreme Court, as amended, and applies to all judges in the state including non-lawyer justices of the peace, as is the respondent in this case. That code provides in pertinent part: In the instant case, respondent Kelly Haddad is the Justice of the Peace in Justice Court Precinct 7 of Pinal County. In 1978, there were 1,709 registered voters in this precinct. At the time of the hearing, he had been a justice of the peace for over 22 years. He is not a lawyer. The Commission heard evidence concerning three counts of alleged judicial misconduct. Count II was dismissed, and findings of misconduct with recommendations of censure were made as to Counts I and III. Respondent made no objections to the findings and recommendations as to Count III, but as to Count I he did object to some of the findings and also conclusion of law number 2. COUNT I Prior to September 1978, the Department of Public Safety believed that respondent was dismissing too many cases filed in his precinct. Highway Patrolman Don Judd stated that respondent was "too easy" on traffic offenders. As a result, it was decided to make an investigation of respondent's procedures. Judd testified as to his instructions: And: On the back of each uniform traffic ticket is a place to check which indicates the disposition of the complaint. These dispositions are "coded" and mesh with computerized accounting systems. Code 30 is "not guilty, acquitted." Code 43 is "charged dismissed by judge." Code 44 is "charge dismissed by judge at the request of prosecutor," and Code 45 is "charge dismissed by judge at request of officer." Other codes concern pleas of guilty, fines and the appearance of the defendant. The testimony indicated that of about 52 citations issued by Officer Judd in August and September of 1978, 18 or 34.6% were dismissed by the judge pursuant to Code 43. The testimony indicated that dismissal by a judge pursuant to "Code 43" without consultation with the officer is commonly done, and respondent's jurisdiction and discretion in making this disposition of a traffic citation is not in question. Also, it should be noted that the state could have refiled some of the matters in the Superior Court and, in fact, when this procedure was suggested to respondent by Judd, respondent did not object. As Judd testified: It is the testimony of Judd and respondent that respondent was unhappy with the *494 Highway Patrol for initiating a great number of citations just prior to respondent's primary election, the 12th of September. It would appear that respondent felt that by "flooding" his precinct with traffic tickets just prior to the election he was being embarrassed politically. From the taped conversation between Judd and the respondent, respondent stated: Judd admitted that he "purposefully wrote wrong" one drunk driving citation so that it would be returned to respondent's court rather than the San Manuel City Court. Respondent testified as to his reasons for dismissing two drunk driving cases. The traffic tickets indicated a blood alcohol content (as determined by the defendants' breath at the time of arrest) of .19 for Robles and .26 for Estrada. The presumptive level is .10. A.R.S. § 28-692(B)(3). Respondent testified regarding these two tickets: After the dismissal of the tickets and after it became apparent that an investigation was being made into the conduct of respondent, he had the record of the court changed in four cases. For example, in citation Number 2211392, on 2 September 1978, the docket sheet showed "dismissed by Judge Kelly Haddad." The docket sheet was then altered so that the period after "Judge Kelly Haddad." was changed to a comma, and the following addition was made, "citation issued out of jurisdiction." Although the evidence would indicate that in the case of this citation the citation was in fact issued out of the jurisdiction and the reasons stated were correct, still the motivating factor in making this change was not based upon jurisdiction, but was in response to his knowledge of the investigation. Amelia Burns, respondent's clerk, testified at the hearing before the Commission as follows: Although she stated at the hearing that she did not remember whether she knew of the inquiry of the Commission at the time she made these changes, in her deposition she had testified as follows: After investigation and hearing by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications and objections by the respondent to the proposed findings and conclusions of law, the following findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted by the Commission: I. OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS a. Findings 1 and 5 Respondent objects to some of the findings in that they did not contain evidence of a mitigating nature. For example, he first asks that Finding 1 be amended to show that he And that Finding 5 read: While we do not believe that the findings of the Commission were incorrect, we do note and consider the evidence of respondent's good reputation among the judges of Pinal County and his lack of any formal legal training. We also recognize that it is the practice of justices of the peace to "summarily dismiss" traffic citations under Code 43. This is frequently done after discussion with the defendant and without discussing the matter with the citing officer, and no statute or case law prohibits this. In fact, the disposition code on the back of the uniform traffic ticket appears to specifically sanction this procedure. We would point out, however, that it is precisely because no reasons need be given for the action of the court in dismissing pursuant to "Code 43" that extra care must be taken to insure that no improper influences play a part in the exercise of that discretion. b. Finding 8 Respondent, while admitting that the citations were dismissed for personal or political reasons, urges that Finding Number 8 should be amended to read as follows: We do not believe Finding Number 8 is incorrect nor should it be changed. We do, however, consider the other reasons given by the respondent for dismissing the citations. II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Commission found that respondent violated (1) the Code of Judicial Conduct, (2) the "wilful misconduct" provision of the Constitution, Article 6.1, § 4, and (3) the prejudicial conduct provisions of the Constitution. Respondent objects only to Conclusion of Law Number 2 which states: "Wilful misconduct" is graver conduct than the lesser included "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice." As was noted by the California Supreme Court: We believe the acts of the respondent in the instant case are more than innocent conduct which is "prejudicial to the administration of justice" and "brings the judicial office into disrepute." Admittedly, the respondent received no money or favors for his dismissals, and there was no corruption in the sense that there was an agreed quid pro quo for his actions. Also, he may have felt that he was being singled out by the Department of Public Safety for special attention, as indeed he was, and was entitled to respond. However, favoring his constituents over others who appear before him makes the administration of justice suspect. There is a positive obligation on the part of a judge not only to be impartial, but to be seen to be impartial: Respondent's actions most certainly gave the appearance of favoritism, special treatment and impropriety. We might be persuaded that respondent's conduct was based upon lack of knowledge as to his responsibilities as a judge were it not for the changing of the court's docket after notice that the dismissals were being questioned. These activities constituted wilful misconduct in office, and when considered along with respondent's lack of candor when questioned about the change clearly brings respondent's actions within the provisions of the more severe provisions of the Constitution. Respondent's conduct was, by clear and convincing evidence, wilful, and Finding Number 2 is affirmed. COUNT III Respondent owns and operates a retail store with his wife known as "Haddad's Fine Apparel," located in Kearny, Arizona, within respondent's precinct. From 1972 until 1979, there have been filed in respondent's court some 17 civil complaints for amounts due and owing to the store. In some instances, writs of garnishment have issued out of the court after default. The complaint would be issued under respondent's name, and he would make a decision as to the amount of the judgment and when to issue a writ of garnishment. The testimony of respondent was that if the matter was contested, a judge from another precinct would be called to sit on the case and render judgment, but in the absence of a contest, respondent would determine the matter. As to Count III, the Commission made the following findings: [LIST OF CIVIL ACTIONS OMITTED] Respondent admitted that he had on occasion filed civil suits in his own court. He stated: However well-intentioned respondent may be, we believe he misses the point when he indicates he should have the "same advantages as any other merchant *500 * * * in the community." Whenever there is a reasonable, even though inconvenient, alternative, a judge should not file a civil action in his own court. It may well be that he will have to go to another precinct to file his causes of action or even to the Superior Court and there will be some delay because of the filing outside his precinct. We do not believe, however, that it is unreasonable to expect that one of the things a justice of the peace will give up upon becoming a justice of the peace is the convenience or "same advantage" of filing an action in his own precinct. Indeed, both the statutes, see A.R.S. § 22-203, and the Canons demand that he must do so. A judge should not only "avoid impropriety," but the "appearance of impropriety." Canon 2, supra. A civil defendant sued in a court presided over by the plaintiff in the case cannot have the same confidence that he will receive a fair and impartial disposition of his matter as he would in another court before another judge. Despite the intention of the judge-plaintiff to disqualify himself should the matter be contested by the defendant, the matter should, if at all possible, be filed, heard and determined in another court. We recognize that some justices of the peace have legitimate business interests outside the court, and these interests will be allowed as long as they do not violate Canon 5, and particularly Section C thereof, relating to financial activities of a judge. Canon 5; Rule 45, Rules of the Supreme Court, 17A A.R.S. When those interests begin to compromise the integrity of the judicial process or bring into question the impartial administration of justice, the justice of the peace must make a choice, either to leave the bench, in which case he will have the "same advantage" as other merchants in the community, or to divest himself of his business interests, thereby insuring the independence and integrity of the judicial process. The Commission's findings and conclusions of law in Count III are affirmed. RECOMMENDATION The Commission made the following recommendation: Our Constitution provides that we "may censure or remove a judge" for misconduct. Ariz.Const. Art. 6.1, § 4. We thus have only two options censure or removal. We may not fine nor may we suspend. We therefore reluctantly apply the lesser punishment of censure. In doing so, we agree with the Commission's finding that the law was not clear to respondent as to what his duties and responsibilities were under a "Code 43" dismissal and that respondent was held in high esteem in his community. We are also aware that in a small precinct such as respondent's, many if not most of the people who appear before the court are well known to the judge. This puts strong and at times seemingly unfair pressure on the justice of the peace in discharging his duties, especially just before election. We are reminded, however, that: *501 Considering that the respondent is not an attorney, seems contrite, and the likelihood that the conduct will not be repeated, we agree with the recommendation of the Commission and impose censure. We wish to state, however, that part of the reason for this lesser discipline is that this is the first case in which the conduct of a justice of the peace has been questioned in this court by the Commission on Judicial Qualifications and which has been disposed of by a written opinion of this court. It may be that the respondent was not aware of the strict ethical requirements imposed upon him by the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Henceforth, judges in this state, be they lawyer or nonlawyer, are on notice that this court will demand of them the highest standards of conduct, and censure as opposed to the removal from office will be the exception rather than the rule in matters as serious to the administration of justice as is evidenced by the facts of this case. Respondent Justice of the Peace Kelly Haddad, for the reasons contained in this opinion, is formally and publicly censured. STRUCKMEYER, C.J., HOLOHAN, V.C.J., and HAYS and GORDON, JJ., concur.