Case Title: In re Disqualification of Bennett

Citation: 2019-Ohio-2017

Docket Number: 19-AP-044

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2019-04-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Bennett, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-2017.] 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF BENNETT. 
IN RE S.W. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Bennett, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2019-Ohio-2017.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Disqualification denied. 
(No. 19-AP-044—Decided April 24, 2019.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Guernsey County Court of Common 
Pleas, Juvenile Division, Case No. 08JG00397. 
____________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Sonya Marshall, counsel for the father in the above-referenced child-
custody case, has filed an affidavit with the clerk of this court pursuant to R.C. 
2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge David B. Bennett from presiding over any 
further proceedings in the custody case. 
{¶ 2} Ms. Marshall claims that an appearance of impropriety would exist if 
Judge Bennett were to preside over the matter because the child’s mother is an 
employee of the Guernsey County Common Pleas Court.  Specifically, Ms. 
Marshall asserts that the child’s mother is the deputy chief probation officer in the 
Adult Probation Department. 
{¶ 3} Judge Bennett has responded in writing to the affidavit and does not 
believe that his disqualification is warranted. 
{¶ 4} “The proper test for determining whether a judge’s participation in a 
case presents an appearance of impropriety is * * * an objective one.  A judge 
should step aside or be removed if a reasonable and objective observer would 
harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality.”  In re Disqualification of 
Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8.  Thus, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
disqualification is appropriate when a professional relationship between a judge and 
an individual involved in a proceeding—such as a party, witness, or the alleged 
victim—could suggest to a reasonable person the existence of prejudice. 
{¶ 5} The facts here are similar to those in In re Disqualification of Barrett, 
152 Ohio St.3d 1275, 2017-Ohio-9435, 99 N.E.3d 410.  In that matter, the alleged 
victim in a criminal case was an employee of the juvenile and probate divisions of 
the Hardin County Court of Common Pleas.  The defendant’s counsel sought to 
disqualify the general-division judge presiding over the criminal case, arguing that 
an appearance of impropriety would exist if that judge were to preside over the 
matter because the alleged victim worked in the same courthouse as the judge and 
had access to the judge and his staff.  In response, the judge stated that the alleged 
victim was an employee of different divisions of the common pleas court, that he 
had no personal relationship with the alleged victim, and that he knew her only 
vaguely as an employee of the juvenile court, which was located on a different floor 
in the courthouse.  Considering the judge’s response, the chief justice denied the 
affidavit of disqualification.  The affiant had not offered convincing evidence of a 
significant professional or personal relationship between the judge and the alleged 
victim that would suggest that the judge could be tempted to depart from his 
expected judicial neutrality. 
{¶ 6} Here, Judge Bennett has stated that the mother, as an adult-probation 
officer, is employed by a different division of the common pleas court, that he has 
no control over her or interaction with her as a probation officer and is unaware of 
any case in which she appeared before him in that capacity, and that although both 
the adult- and juvenile-probation departments are located in the same courthouse, 
they do not share office space.  Ms. Marshall asserts that the “reasonable observer 
would not delineate whether [the mother] was technically employed and supervised 
by the Juvenile Division or the General or Domestic Relations Division.”  It is well 
established, however, that the “reasonable observer is presumed to be fully 
January Term, 2019 
 
3
informed of all relevant facts in the record—not isolated facts divorced from their 
larger context,” In re Disqualification of Gall, 135 Ohio St.3d 1283, 2013-Ohio-
1319, 986 N.E.2d 1005, ¶ 6. 
{¶ 7} Based on this record—and consistent with Barrett—no reasonable 
and objective observer would question Judge Bennett’s impartiality.  “The statutory 
right to seek disqualification of a judge is an extraordinary remedy.  * * * A judge 
is presumed to follow the law and not to be biased, and the appearance of bias or 
prejudice must be compelling to overcome these presumptions.” In re 
Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, 
¶ 5.  Those presumptions have not been overcome in this case. 
{¶ 8} The affidavit of disqualification is denied.  The case may proceed 
before Judge Bennett. 
________________________