Case Title: In re Disqualification of Vercillo

Citation: 2013-Ohio-5763

Docket Number: 13-AP-099

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2013-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Vercillo, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-5763.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF VERCILLO. 
CRUMRINE v. CRUMRINE ET AL. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Vercillo, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-5763.] 
Judges—Affidavits of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Judge’s determination of 
affiant’s credibility in a prior case was based on the facts before him—
Affidavit denied. 
(No. 13-AP-099—Decided November 4, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Ashland County Court of Common Pleas, 
Probate Division, Case No. CR 20134001A. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Plaintiff Terry Crumrine and his attorney, John N. Porter, have 
filed affidavits with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 and 2101.39 
seeking to disqualify Judge Damian J. Vercillo from presiding over any further 
proceedings in case No. 20134001A, now pending in the Probate Division of the 
Court of Common Pleas of Ashland County. 
{¶ 2} Affiants fear that Judge Vercillo cannot be impartial to Crumrine 
because of conclusions the judge reached regarding Crumrine’s credibility in a 
previous guardianship case.  Affiants further question Judge Vercillo’s ability to 
preside fairly over the underlying trust matter because the judge’s former law 
partner represents a defendant and may be called as witness.  Judge Vercillo has 
responded in writing to the concerns raised in the affidavits, averring that he has 
no bias for or against any party in the case. 
{¶ 3} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Vercillo. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
The guardianship case 
{¶ 4} Judge Vercillo recently denied Crumrine’s application for 
guardianship in a proceeding involving most of the same parties as the underlying 
trust matter.  In his decision in the guardianship case, Judge Vercillo concluded 
that some of Crumrine’s testimony was “vague and somewhat deceptive,” and the 
judge found other portions of his testimony “to not be credible.”  Judge Vercillo 
also noted that Crumrine may have overly influenced the alleged incompetent 
person.  Affiants now claim that Judge Vercillo’s negative opinion of Crumrine 
from the guardianship case may affect the judge’s ability to impartially consider 
Crumrine’s testimony in the pending trust matter. 
{¶ 5} Contrary to affiants’ contention, “[s]tate and federal courts have 
been virtually unanimous in holding that—absent a showing of actual bias—a 
judge who presided over prior proceedings involving one or more parties 
presently before the court is not thereby disqualified from presiding over later 
proceedings involving the same parties.”  In re Disqualification of Bryant, 117 
Ohio St.3d 1251, 2006-Ohio-7227, 885 N.E.2d 246, ¶ 4.  Even if a judge forms a 
negative opinion about a party as a result of what he or she learned in a prior 
proceeding, such opinions are ordinarily not a basis for disqualification in a future 
proceeding involving that party.  See In re Disqualification of Basinger, 135 Ohio 
St.3d 1293, 2013-Ohio-1613, 987 N.E.2d 687, ¶ 5 (“because ‘ “evidence 
presented in the trial of a prior cause * * * do[es] not stem from an extrajudicial 
source,” it creates no personal bias requiring recusal’ ”), quoting State v. 
D’Ambrosio, 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 188, 61 N.E.2d 909 (1993), quoting State v. 
Smith, 242 N.W.2d 320, 324 (Iowa 1976).  Judges are expected to be able to keep 
their prior opinions from intruding on their duties to fairly and impartially decide 
each case.  That is, “[j]ust as a ‘[a] judge is presumed to follow the law and not to 
be biased,’ In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 2003-Ohio-
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
5489, 748 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5, a judge is presumed to be capable of separating what 
may properly be considered from what may not be considered.”  Basinger at ¶ 5. 
{¶ 6} Here, Judge Vercillo avers that he assessed Crumrine’s credibility 
in the guardianship case based on the evidence presented in that proceeding, and 
he further states that he has no preconceived opinion about Crumrine’s 
truthfulness in the current matter.  Because nothing in the record suggests that 
Judge Vercillo has been unduly influenced by the testimony in the guardianship 
case, the judge’s presumption of impartiality has not been overcome. 
The judge’s relationship with defense counsel 
{¶ 7} Affiants also question whether Judge Vercillo’s relationship with 
defense counsel, John Vanosdall, will affect the judge’s impartially; alternatively, 
they assert that the relationship at least suggests an appearance of bias.  Vanosdall 
was Judge Vercillo’s former law partner, and affiants claim that Vanosdall drafted 
the allegedly defective trust at issue in the underlying case, which will likely 
require Vanosdall to testify as a witness.  In response, Judge Vercillo 
acknowledges that he was Vanosdall’s law partner from 1983 to 1993, at which 
time the partnership dissolved.  But the judge further explains that the trust in the 
underlying case was allegedly created in 2006—well after the law partnership 
terminated—and that while he remains acquainted with Vanosdall, the judge has 
no business or ongoing social relationship with him. 
{¶ 8} In general, “the more intimate the relationship between a judge and 
a person who is involved in a pending proceeding, the more acute is the concern 
that the judge may be tempted to depart from the expected judicial detachment or 
to reasonably appear to have done so.”  In re Disqualification of Shuff, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 1230, 2004-Ohio-7355, 884 N.E.2d 1084, ¶ 6.  However, it is well 
established that “a prior professional relationship between a judge and an attorney 
will not be grounds for disqualification where that relationship ended some years 
ago.”  In re Disqualification of Ward, 100 Ohio St.3d 1211, 798 N.E.2d 1 (2002) 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
(disqualification denied when judge’s professional relationship with an attorney 
appearing before him ended seven years prior).  Here, Judge Vercillo’s 
professional relationship with Vanosdall ended almost 20 years ago, and Judge 
Vercillo states that his current relationship with Vanosdall is no different from the 
judge’s relationship with most of the attorneys in Ashland County.  On this 
record, no reasonable or objective observer would question Judge Vercillo’s 
ability to preside fairly in the underlying case.  See In re Disqualification of 
Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8 (a judge’s 
participation in a case presents an appearance of impropriety if “a reasonable and 
objective observer would harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality”). 
Conclusion 
{¶ 9} “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. 
{¶ 10} For the reasons stated above, the affidavits of disqualification are 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Vercillo. 
________________________