Case Title: Matter of Field

Citation: 281 Or. 623, 576 P.2d 348

Docket Number: 

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 1978-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
576 P.2d 348 (1978)
281 Or. 623
In the matter of the Honorable Shirley A. Field, Judge.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted January 13, 1978.
Decided March 22, 1978.
*349 Margaretta M. Eakin, Portland, argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the brief were David F. Cargo, and Leslie M. Roberts, Portland.
John L. Schwabe, and George H. Fraser, Portland, argued the cause for the Commission. With them on the brief were Donald Joe Willis and E. Joseph Dean, Portland.
PER CURIAM.
This is a proceeding under amended Section 8 of Article VII of the Oregon Constitution and ORS 1.430 relating to the power of this court to remove, suspend or censure a judge. We are deciding upon the record made before the Commission on Judicial Fitness whether Judge Shirley A. Field should be removed from her position as Judge of the District Court for Multnomah County.
Judge Field was appointed a judge of the District Court for Multnomah County in July, 1972, and was elected to that position in November, 1972.
On May 25, 1977, a Notice of Complaint and Inquiry charging Judge Field with various acts of misconduct was filed by the Commission on Judicial Fitness (Commission). The complaint contained an allegation that the Commission "reserves the right to amend this complaint and inquiry at any time prior to hearing." On June 8, Judge Field filed an answer containing admissions, denials and explanations of the charges. The answer also contained a reservation of the right to amend at any time prior to trial. On July 8, 1977, the Commission advised Judge Field that the hearing on the charges was set for August 8, 1977. Several days before the hearing, counsel for Judge Field was notified that the Commission intended to file an amended complaint, and such amended complaint was filed on August 8, 1977. On September 19, 1977, the Commission filed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and a recommendation that Judge Field be removed from her position as a district judge for Multnomah County.
In November of 1968 the people of the State of Oregon added amended Section 8 to Article VII of the Oregon Constitution:
Effective June 24, 1976, the people amended this constitutional provision so that it now reads as follows:
The Commission found that Judge Field's behavior throughout her tenure as judge constituted wilful misconduct, wilful failure to perform judicial duties, persistent failure to perform judicial duties, and also found her performance of judicial duties to be generally incompetent.
Preliminarily, Judge Field challenges the filing of the amended complaint before the hearing started on August 8, 1977, and contends the amended notice lacked sufficient information to apprise her of the charges and deprived her of an opportunity to refute them. She also contends that one or more of the members of the Commission had prejudged the facts before the hearing.
We shall discuss first the allegation of a prejudgment of the facts. She states that two of the commissioners had made public statements that she was incompetent. The record shows that Judge Field knew of the public statements prior to the hearing. Her counsel wrote a letter to these two commissioners before the hearing but did not request that they be disqualified.[1] On the second day of the hearing, the chairman advised Judge Field and her counsel that the letters had been received. Again, no objection or request for disqualification was made.
In addition to the failure to request that the two commissioners disqualify themselves, there is another reason why this challenge to the Commission's findings must fail. We review the record to decide independently the facts and what action is to be ordered by this court. ORS 1.430(1) and see also Matter of Del Rio, 400 Mich. 665, 256 N.W.2d 727 (1977).
Judge Field's next contention is that the filing of the amended complaint deprived her of an opportunity to defend herself in that it was an untimely presentation of new charges. This contention must also fail. As previously noted, the original complaint advised Judge Field that the Commission reserved the right to amend at any time prior to the hearing, as she reserved the right to amend her answer at the hearing. Judge Field was advised several days before the hearing that an amended complaint would be filed. No motion for a continuance was made at that time or at the hearing. Moreover, at the conclusion of the hearing the Commission specifically offered to return for further consideration of any matters, and she declined.
Judge Field alleges that the new matter in the amended complaint consisted of Charges 33, 34 and 35 in Count II,[2] and all *351 of Count VII. Count VII, contrary to the allegation, is not new as it appeared in both the original and amended complaints. Charges 33 and 35 are also not new matter but are merely a delineation of Charge 24, which appears in both complaints and charges Judge Field with failure to give criminal defendants their constitutional and statutory rights. Charge 34, that she failed to appoint certain qualified attorneys to represent criminal defendants because such attorneys had filed affidavits of prejudice against her, is new and involved incidents that allegedly occurred subsequent to the filing of the original complaint.
Although we believe that Judge Field waived any alleged procedural defect and that she was not prejudiced, we shall decline to consider the incidents connected with Charge 34, the only new matter raised by the amended complaint.
Before discussing the merits of the charges against Judge Field, we should consider the quantum of proof necessary to censure, suspend, or remove a judge.
Both the Commission and Judge Field agree that the proof should be clear and convincing before a judge may be censured, suspended or removed from office. Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 10 Cal. 3d 270, 110 Cal. Rptr. 201, 515 P.2d 1 (1973); In re Nowell, 293 N.C. 235, 237 S.E.2d 246 (1977). This is the standard of proof required in bar disciplinary proceedings, In re Farris, 229 Or. 209, 367 P.2d 387 (1961), and we believe the same standard should apply to members of the judiciary. In deciding whether the proof is clear and convincing, we review de novo and make our own independent evaluation of the evidence. We then decide whether the conduct, based on our findings of the facts constitutes conduct proscribed by the Oregon Constitution. Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra.
Judge Field's initial contention on the merits is that we may not consider incidents which occurred prior to June 24, 1976, the effective date of the changes to Article VII, section 8, of the Constitution enacted in May of that year. Judge Field argues that to do so would give retrospective effect to the amendment, because none of the provisions of the 1968 version of the amendment apply. Judge Field also argues that such a retrospective application would be impermissible. We need not address this argument if the acts in the complaint occurring after June 24, 1976, are of sufficient weight to support a finding that the Constitution as amended has been violated. One of the findings against Judge Field was that her performance of judicial duties was generally incompetent. We agree, and conclude that the incidents outlined below demonstrate general incompetence. Because all of them occurred after June 24, 1976, we do not pass on the retroactivity of the 1976 amendments. We now turn to the facts that are the foundation of our conclusion.
A deputy district attorney testified that on September 7, 1976, a defendant who had been in custody since September 4 was brought before Judge Field for parking violations. He entered pleas of not guilty and advised the judge that he was not the driver or the owner of the vehicle. He also stated that he had no driver's license and had no interest in the vehicle that had received the tickets, and that the car belonged to a friend. The deputy testified:
In July, 1976, a criminal defendant was in custody as a result of a bench warrant. His counsel and the district attorney agreed on a guilty plea and appeared in Judge Field's courtroom. The following transpired, according to defendant's counsel:
A police officer testified that in February, 1977, he appeared in court in relation to a DUII citation. The defendant's name was called but he was not present. Without *353 swearing the witness, the judge asked the officer for the breathalyzer reading, and he responded, "1.8." She found the defendant guilty and fined him $250. Although no evidence was offered by anyone, she also found the defendant guilty of no operator's license and fined him $15.
In May, 1977, Judge Field revoked a defendant's probation without his attorney being present, although she had been advised that he had counsel. When the defendant told her he had counsel who was not present, she stated, "We are going to talk about you, not an attorney or anybody else."
A deputy district attorney testified that during 1976 Judge Field would not appoint an attorney when the defendant had agreed to have the case heard by the court without a jury. In one instance, a woman charged with prostitution requested counsel be appointed. She was advised that her request was "too late." At the time of trial she appeared with her mother; both advised the court they were without funds and again requested counsel. The deputy district attorney told the court an attorney should be appointed. The request was denied and defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days. At neither time did the judge inquire concerning the defendant's financial situation or her ability to hire an attorney.[3]
As a district court judge handling misdemeanors, Judge Field was closely involved with the Metropolitan Public Defender's Office. The Public Defender, who was concerned about the manner in which defendants were being advised of their rights by the court, requested a meeting of the judge, a deputy district attorney, and himself. At the meeting on February 11, 1976, he testified that "she seemed not to center on what we were talking about * * *" and would not listen to or comprehend the problem. She felt the "people in the MPD were saying bad things about her, malicious rumors" and that her "primary job was to keep the court running quickly."
The relations between the Public Defender's Office and the court continued to deteriorate. As a result, private counsel received more appointments, and defendants would enter not guilty pleas before her and then change the pleas to guilty before another district judge. There was evidence that a large number of attorneys were filing affidavits of prejudice against Judge Field. One of the district judges testified that over 400 affidavits were filed against Judge Field in a year, compared to approximately 10 against any other district judge.[4] As a result, when cases were assigned, it was necessary to assign them to other judges, greatly increasing those judges' individual caseloads. The judge also stated that on several occasions he would observe Judge Field in an extremely distraught condition and crying. At another time, she refused to follow the district court practice of rotating courts every six months when the duties change. She refused to move her furniture out of her chambers and even locked the door, resulting in one judge having no chambers until the presiding judge convinced her to move her furniture. He testified that, while Judge Field was well educated and not lacking in intelligence, her problem was "her temperament and apparent inability to get along with people and the lawyers before the court." He reluctantly stated that, in his opinion, she was not competent to perform as a district court judge for Multnomah County.
In all fairness to Judge Field, we find that some of the charges are inconsequential or the result of oversight, and others contain criticisms that could be addressed to any trial judge.[5]
*354 However, the evidence clearly shows a general incompetent performance of judicial duties. Her treatment of counsel, her disregard for statutory and constitutional rights of defendants, and her general inability to cope with the pressures of the office reflect a lack of the knowledge and judgment necessary for the proper administration of justice in our courts.
We also feel that her incompetent performance on the district bench was the result of emotional instability caused by the pressures of her duties.[6]
The Commission has recommended that we remove Judge Field. Removal is not the only solution available in cases of this kind. The 1976 amendments to the Constitution specifically provide for alternative sanctions for violations of the constitutional provisions. Whether removal is the appropriate solution depends not only on the magnitude of the violation but also on the probability of the violation's recurrence. If the violation is likely to recur, removal is appropriate.
Judge Field did not testify before the Commission. However, portions of her deposition were read into the record. She stated that after she finished her "tour of duty" in the traffic court in the winter of 1974-75, she received psychiatric treatment at the University of Oregon Medical School. She stated that the volume in the traffic court had been extremely heavy for those six months. She also stated:
Again, in January, 1977, she was hospitalized and received psychiatric treatment for two and a half or three weeks. She testified in her deposition:
She also explained the reason for her emotional problems:
Her answer to the Commission's charges further explained the January, 1977, treatment:
While we recognize the pressures upon a trial judge in a busy metropolitan court, we believe Judge Field's inability to cope with her emotional problems after several attempts with professional help indicates that removal is a necessity. It is appropriate that we mention here that the district courts of this state are, in reality, the "People's Courts," and for many it may be the only contact they will ever have with our courts. "The impressions they receive serve to shape their opinion of the judicial system, our laws and law enforcement. We cannot permit that opinion to be anything but one of confidence and respect." Matter of Yengo, 72 N.J. 425, 371 A.2d 41, 46 (1977), quoting Chief Justice Weintraub in 81 N.J.L.J.
It is the decision of this court that Judge Field shall be removed from office as District Court Judge for Multnomah County. The order for removal shall issue not sooner than 20 days after the date of this decision.[7]
[1]  The letter, dated August 3, 1977, stated in part:

"I have been requested by my client, Judge Shirley Field, to forward to you a copy of an editorial which apparently appeared in the Bend Bulletin on February 24, 1976. Judge Field says that she has a question in her mind as to whether or not you can sit with impartiality as a member of the Commission hearing her case. I have no personal knowledge as to whether you could or couldn't, and thus I take no position. Apparently she feels that you should give some thought as to whether or not you could serve impartially and any questions in connection with this matter you might have, please feel free to call me."
[2]  The new charges were as follows:

"33. Inquiree has engaged in conduct intended to, or highly likely to, coerce a defendant to plead guilty.
"34. Inquiree has intentionally refused to appoint certain qualified and experienced attorneys to represent criminal defendants because those attorneys, in good faith, filed affidavits of prejudice against her or because those attorneys provided information in connection with the investigation conducted by this Commission.
"35. Inquiree has either willfully or persistently failed or refused to follow proper legal procedures for accepting guilty pleas from criminal defendants."
[3]  There were other cases where it appeared obvious that the defendant qualified for court-appointed counsel. Judge Field, in her answer to the charges, stated the volume of cases prevented her from doing as thorough a job of determining indigency as she would like.
[4]  We do not intend to imply that the number of affidavits necessarily has any bearing on a judge's ability. There may be other reasons for the filing of affidavits.
[5]  As examples, there was evidence that Judge Field required lawyers to argue objections before the jury, failed once to swear the bailiff, required exceptions to be taken before the jury, and made the wrong decision on the merits of a case.
[6]  Certain medical records relating to Judge Field were subpoenaed but were sealed and not introduced into the record when she objected on the grounds they were subject to the doctor patient privilege contained in ORS 44.040. The Commission requests this court to pass upon the admissibility of the records. The matter has not been briefed by either side, and we decline the invitation to decide whether any exception may exist to the privilege. The records remain sealed.
[7]  Rule 10.20 of this court provides that a petition for rehearing may be filed within 20 days after the date of this court's decision.