Case Title: In re Disqualification of OÆNeill

Citation: 1997-Ohio-19

Docket Number: 1997AP074

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF O’NEILL. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. CAULLEY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of O’Neill (1997), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Mere disagreement or dissatisfaction 
with judge’s rulings of law is not grounds for disqualification — Judges of 
Franklin County disqualified from presiding at suppression hearing when 
former assistant prosecuting attorney, now a common pleas judge, will be 
called as witness. 
(No. 97-AP-074 — Decided June 4, 1997.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Franklin County  
Court of Common Pleas case No. 96CR-12-6787. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  Robert J. Caulley, the defendant in a capital murder case 
assigned to Judge Deborah P. O’Neill of the Franklin County Court of Common 
Pleas, has filed an affidavit seeking the disqualification of Judge O’Neill and all 
judges of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas from further proceedings in 
this case.  This matter is scheduled for a June 6, 1997 hearing on affiant’s motion 
to suppress. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge O’Neill should be disqualified because she 
displayed bias and prejudice against him in removing his previously appointed 
trial counsel without notice to the affiant and an opportunity to be heard.  Affiant 
further contends that Judge O’Neill and all judges from the Franklin County Court 
of Common Pleas should be disqualified because Judge Daniel Hogan will be 
called as a witness at a hearing on affiant’s motion to suppress to testify as to his 
involvement as an assistant prosecuting attorney in obtaining statements from the 
affiant following his arrest. 
 
2
 
Affiant’s first contention expresses disagreement with Judge O’Neill’s 
ruling in which she removed affiant’s court-appointed counsel and nullified 
affiant’s indigency status based on the fact that private counsel had been retained 
on affiant’s behalf.  Contrary to affiant’s contention, this ruling does not appear to 
be the product of bias or prejudice on the part of Judge O’Neill, and mere 
disagreement or dissatisfaction with a judge’s rulings of law is not grounds for 
disqualification.  In re Disqualification of Murphy (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 605, 522 
N.E.2d 459. 
 
Affiant’s second contention relates not only to Judge O’Neill’s continued 
participation in this case, but also to the ability of any judge in the Franklin 
County Court of Common Pleas to preside over this matter.  The motion to 
suppress filed by affiant contends that certain statements made by affiant to law 
enforcement officers during their murder investigation were not voluntary.  
According to the record before me, Judge Hogan, while serving as an assistant 
prosecuting attorney, was involved in this investigation, and affiant alleges that he 
will be called as a witness at the suppression hearing.  As a result, affiant contends 
that the judge presiding at the hearing will be asked to assess Judge Hogan’s 
professionalism, competency, credibility, and truthfulness and, perhaps, determine 
whether Judge Hogan may have participated in the coercion of allegedly 
involuntary statements made by the affiant. 
 
In re Disqualification of Morrissey (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 1252, 674 N.E.2d 
360, involved a post-conviction relief proceeding in which the defendant alleged 
that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel at trial.  The defendant’s trial 
counsel was then serving as the court’s administrator, and the defendant sought 
disqualification of all judges in Hamilton County on the grounds that the judges 
would be asked to assess the competency of legal representation provided by an 
 
3
attorney who is now a court employee.  I concluded that disqualification was 
warranted to avoid the appearance of impropriety, since the judges would be 
required “to assess the abilities of the senior, nonjudicial employee of the court 
who, by local rule, works most closely on a daily basis with the entire Hamilton 
County bench.”  Id. at 1253, 674 N.E.2d at 361. 
 
The judge presiding over the suppression hearing in this matter will be 
asked to make a similar assessment of Judge Hogan’s testimony and perhaps his 
involvement in the investigation that produced the statements affiant seeks to 
suppress.  While there is no indication in the record before me that Judge O’Neill 
or the other judges of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas cannot fairly 
and impartially preside over the suppression hearing, their disqualification is 
mandated to avoid the appearance of impropriety.  Judge Deborah P. O’Neill and 
all judges of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas are disqualified from 
this case, and I will assign a judge from outside Franklin County to preside in this 
matter.