Case Title: In the Matter of the Honorable William J. Hughes, Judge of the Hamilton Superior Court

Citation: 

Docket Number: 29S00-1105-JD-279

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2011-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
ATTORNEY FOR HON. 
 
 
 
 
 
ATTORNEY FOR THE COMMISSION  
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS  
 
Forrest Bowman, Jr. 
 
 
 
 
 
Adrienne L. Meiring 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
 
 
 
 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
 
______________________________________________________________________________ 
 
In the 
Indiana Supreme Court  
 
_________________________________ 
 
No. 29S00-1105-JD-279 
 
IN THE MATTER OF THE HONORABLE 
WILLIAM J. HUGHES, JUDGE  
OF THE HAMILTON SUPERIOR COURT 
 
_________________________________ 
  
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINARY ACTION 
_________________________________ 
 
May 27, 2011 
 
Per Curiam. 
 
This matter comes before the Court as a result of a judicial disciplinary action brought by 
the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications (“Commission”) against Respondent William 
J. Hughes, Judge of the Hamilton Superior Court.  Article 7, Section 4 of the Indiana 
Constitution and Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 25 give the Indiana Supreme Court 
original jurisdiction over this matter. 
Subsequent to the filing of formal charges by the Commission, the parties jointly 
tendered a “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for Discipline” in which 
they have stipulated to the following facts.  On October 27, 2010, Respondent was pulled over 
by a Currituck County, North Carolina sheriff’s deputy for a moving violation.  During the 
traffic stop, the deputy noticed the odor of alcohol on Respondent’s breath and person.  At the 
deputy’s request, Respondent performed three field sobriety tests.  He passed two and failed one.  
FILED
CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
May 27 2011, 9:27 am
 
 
2 
Thereafter, Respondent submitted to a certified breath test, which showed Respondent as having 
an alcohol concentration equivalent of .13 gram of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.  The legal 
limit in North Carolina is .08 gram of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.  See N.C. Gen. Stat. 
Ann. § 20-138.1(a)(2) (West 2009).   
Respondent was subsequently arrested and charged with Driving While Impaired, id. 
§ 20-138.1, a Class 1 misdemeanor, see N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 14-3(a) (West 2009), and Driving 
Left of Center, N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 20-146 (West 2009), an infraction.  At no time during the 
traffic stop or arrest did Respondent refer to his judicial title or allude to his judicial status.   
The day after his arrest, Respondent reported his arrest to the Indiana Commission on 
Judicial Qualifications. 
On April 18, 2011, the Currituck County deputy prosecutor dismissed Respondent’s 
Driving While Impaired charge and filed in its place a charge of Reckless Driving, a Class 2 
misdemeanor, N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 20-140(d) (West 2009), to which Respondent pled guilty.  
The district court sentenced Respondent to 30 days in jail, all of which was suspended, and 
placed him on unsupervised probation for twelve months conditional upon Respondent: 
(a) enrolling in and completing an alcohol and drug assessment program within 180 days or 
attending at least ten hours of substance abuse counseling; and (b) not operating a vehicle within 
eight hours of consuming any alcohol.  Respondent was also ordered to pay $443 in fines and 
costs.  At no time during the criminal proceedings did Respondent attempt in any way to gain an 
advantage because he is a judge; rather, the criminal proceedings were handled in the customary 
fashion for the jurisdiction.   
The Commission asserts that the conduct recited above violates Rule 1.11 and 1.22 of the 
Code of Judicial Conduct.  We agree with the Commission.  The parties agree that Respondent 
                                                 
1 Rule 1.1 states, “A judge shall comply with the law, including the Code of Judicial Conduct.”  Ind. 
Judicial Conduct Rule 1.1 (West 2010) (definitional asterisk removed). 
2 Rule 1.2 states, “A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the 
independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance 
of impropriety.”  Jud. Cond. R. 1.2 (definitional asterisks removed). 
 
 
3 
cooperated with the Commission during its investigation and prosecution of this judicial 
disciplinary matter and that the appropriate sanction for Respondent’s misconduct is a public 
reprimand.  We agree with the parties. 
Accordingly, William J. Hughes, Judge in the Hamilton Superior Court, is hereby 
reprimanded.  This discipline terminates the disciplinary proceedings relating to the 
circumstances giving rise to this cause.  The costs of this proceeding, if any, are assessed against 
Respondent.  Pursuant to Indiana Admission and Discipline Rule 25(VIII)(B)(3), the Clerk is 
directed to file the parties’ “Statement of Circumstances and Conditional Agreement for 
Discipline” and include it in the Court’s records of this matter.  
SHEPARD, C.J., and DICKSON, SULLIVAN, RUCKER, and DAVID, JJ., concur.