Case Title: In Re Bullock

Citation: 328 N.C. 712, 403 S.E.2d 264

Docket Number: 426A90

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1991-05-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
403 S.E.2d 264 (1991)
328 N.C. 712
In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 132, Stafford G. BULLOCK.
No. 426A90.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 2, 1991.
Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by James J. Coman, Sr. Deputy Atty. Gen., and R. Dawn Gibbs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the Judicial Standards Com'n.
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice by Donald L. Smith, Bass & Bryant by Gerald L. Bass, Raleigh, and Theresa A.N. Glover, Duke University School of Law, Durham, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The Judicial Standards Commission (Commission) notified Judge Stafford G. Bullock on 12 April 1989 that it had ordered a preliminary investigation to determine whether formal proceedings under Commission Rule 7 should be instituted against him. The subject matter of the investigation included allegations that during the course of proceedings in open court in State v. Coble, Wake County file No. 89 CR 10254, over which Judge Bullock, respondent, presided on 13 March 1989, Judge Bullock wrongfully ordered the detention of the defendant's attorney, Richard *265 N. Gusler, and threatened him when, in the course of representing his client and in response to questions from Judge Bullock, Mr. Gusler refused in good faith on ethical grounds to give Judge Bullock a reason for his motion to withdraw as counsel for defendant and to make a recommendation concerning defendant's eligibility for a diversion program.
Special Counsel for the Commission filed a complaint on 20 November 1989. Respondent answered the complaint and prayed that the action be dismissed and that no recommendation of discipline be forwarded to the North Carolina Supreme Court as provided by N.C.G.S. § 7A-377, the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Rules of the Judicial Standards Commission.
On 28 March 1990, Judge Bullock was given notice in accordance with Rule 10 of the Commission that a formal hearing concerning the charge alleged against him would be conducted. On 29 June 1990, respondent was accorded a plenary hearing before six members of the Commission on the charges contained in the complaint. The Commission's evidence was presented by James J. Coman, Senior Deputy Attorney General, and respondent was represented by his counsel Donald L. Smith, Gerald L. Bass, and Theresa A. N. Glover. After hearing the evidence, the Commission concluded on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the conduct of respondent constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute and his actions violated Canons 2 A, 3 A(1), and 3 A(3) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. The findings upon which the Commission based its conclusion are found in paragraph 9 of its Recommendation and are as follows:
Based upon these findings of fact and conclusion of law, the Commission recommended that the Supreme Court of North Carolina censure the respondent. On 11 September 1990, respondent petitioned this Court for a hearing on the Commission's recommendation for censure, and prayed that the recommendation of the Commission be rejected, that no discipline be imposed, and for such other relief as is just and proper.
A proceeding before the Judicial Standards Commission is "an inquiry into the conduct of one exercising judicial power.... Its aim is not to punish the individual but to maintain the honor and dignity of the judiciary and the proper administration of justice." In Re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 241, 237 S.E.2d 246, 250 (1977). The *267 recommendations of the Commission are not binding upon the Supreme Court, and this Court must consider all the evidence and exercise its independent judgment as to whether it should censure the respondent, remove him from office, or decline to do either. In re Martin, 295 N.C. 291, 301, 245 S.E.2d 766, 772 (1978).
We have carefully examined the evidence presented to the Commission and the arguments of counsel related thereto. We conclude that the findings made by the Commission in paragraph 9 are supported by clear and convincing evidence. See In Re Kivett, 309 N.C. 635, 309 S.E.2d 442 (1983). We agree with the Commission that the actions of the respondent constitute conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. We also agree with the Commission's conclusion that respondent's actions violate Canon 2 A of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. Under the circumstances, we find it unnecessary to determine whether respondent's conduct may also violate Canons 3 A(1) and 3 A(3).
After respondent denied the attorney's motion to withdraw, he directed the attorney to remain in the courtroom while the defendant was sent to another room to be interviewed for the first offenders program. During a recess, respondent discussed the matter with an experienced attorney who called respondent's attention to the adverse impact respondent's directives would have on the attorney's ability to practice law. Thereafter, despite the expressions of concern about the respondent's directives, the respondent again addressed himself to the attorney in open court in front of all those present and stated that the matter had gotten out of hand but that everything he had said earlier regarding recommendations, continuances, indigent appointments, and pleas still applied.
In re Bullock, 324 N.C. 320, 322, 377 S.E.2d 743, 744 (1989). Here, however, the respondent's actions in open court, after having sufficient time for reflection, went beyond that which should reasonably be expected of an impartial member of the judiciary. Therefore, rather than promoting public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, this conduct, under the circumstances, was sufficiently egregious to amount to conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office in disrepute within the meaning of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376.
For the reasons herein stated, we conclude that the respondent's actions in the case of State v. Coble, Wake County File No. 89 CR 10254, constituted conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute. For this conduct, respondent merits censure.
Now, therefore, it is ordered by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in Conference, that the respondent, Judge Stafford G. Bullock, be, and he is hereby, censured by this Court for the conduct determined herein to be conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute.