Case Title: In re Disqualification of Rastatter

Citation: 2006-Ohio-7226

Docket Number: 06AP055

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-07-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rastatter, 113 Ohio St.3d 1218, 2006-Ohio-7226.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RASTATTER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. MARLER. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rastatter, 
 113 Ohio St.3d 1218, 2006-Ohio-7226.] 
Judges – Affidavit of disqualification – Disqualification granted. 
(No. 06-AP-055—Decided July 27, 2006.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Clark County  
Court of Common Pleas Case No. 06-CR-155. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Attorney Dean Boland – counsel for the defendant – has filed an 
affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking the 
disqualification of Judge Douglas M. Rastatter from acting on any further 
proceedings in case No. 06-CR-155 in the Court of Common Pleas of Clark 
County. 
{¶ 2} Boland alleges that Judge Rastatter – who is the assigned judge 
scheduled to hear the defendant’s criminal case – issued a search warrant that led 
to the discovery of evidence that the prosecution intends to present at trial.  When 
the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence seized by law enforcement 
officers under the authority of the search warrant, Judge Rastatter stepped aside 
from the suppression hearing and allowed a visiting judge to rule on the motion. 
{¶ 3} Judge Rastatter himself testified on behalf of the prosecution at the 
suppression hearing, however, and Boland alleges that the judge admitted holding 
ex parte discussions with the prosecutor about that hearing.  Boland also contends 
that the judge and the prosecutor are close personal friends and former colleagues.  
For these reasons, Boland questions whether Judge Rastatter can preside fairly at 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
the defendant’s upcoming trial, and he asks that a visiting judge from outside 
Clark County be assigned to hear the case. 
{¶ 4} Judge Rastatter has responded in writing to the affidavit.  He 
contends that the ex parte communications that he held with the prosecutor were 
“strictly limited to the testimony that would be presented at the suppression 
hearing.”  He also pledges that his friendship with the prosecutor will not affect 
his rulings on the case. 
{¶ 5} I conclude that Judge Rastatter must be disqualified from further 
proceedings in this case.  Canon 3(E)(1)(d)(v) of the Ohio Code of Judicial 
Conduct calls for any judge who is “likely to be a material witness in the 
proceeding” to step aside from the case.  To be sure, I have declined to establish a 
rule “requiring disqualification of a judge based solely on suppositions that the 
judge may be called as a witness or allegations that the judge possesses evidence 
material to the case.”  In re Disqualification of Gorman (1993), 74 Ohio St.3d 
1251, 657 N.E.2d 1354.  Once a judge is likely to testify or has in fact already 
testified, however, I have ordered the judge’s disqualification.  See, e.g., In re 
Disqualification of Bond (2001), 94 Ohio St.3d 1221, 763 N.E.2d 593 (“there 
appears a significant likelihood that Judge Bond will be called to testify”); In re 
Disqualification of Corrigan (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 602, 603, 546 N.E.2d 925 
(“the importance of avoiding even the appearance of any prejudice or partiality” 
justified the disqualification of a judge who was alleged to be an important 
witness for the prosecution in the underlying criminal case). 
{¶ 6} In this case, where the judge has already testified as a material 
witness for the prosecution at a suppression hearing, and where the judge has 
acknowledged holding ex parte discussions with the prosecutor about his 
testimony, a reasonable and objective observer familiar with these facts might 
harbor serious doubts about the judge’s impartiality.  Canon 3(E)(1) of the Code 
of Judicial Conduct directs judges to step aside from any proceedings in which 
January Term, 2006 
3 
their impartiality “might reasonably be questioned.”  This case is one in which 
that provision applies.  The roles of judge and witness are incompatible.  Because 
Judge Rastatter has already testified as a material witness for the prosecution in 
this case, he should not attempt to resume his role as an impartial arbiter of the 
parties’ dispute.  To maintain the public’s confidence in the integrity of the 
judicial process in this case, a different judge should hear any further proceedings 
in the trial court. 
{¶ 7} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
granted.  The case is returned to the administrative judge of the court of common 
pleas for reassignment. 
______________________