Case Title: Leighton v. Henderson

Citation: 414 S.W.2d 419

Docket Number: 

State: tennessee

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Date: 1967-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
414 S.W.2d 419 (1967) Ira LEIGHTON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, etc. Supreme Court of Tennessee. April 7, 1967. Lloyd Comer, Lawrenceburg, for petitioner, Leighton. William A. Harwell, Dist. Atty. Gen., Columbia, and Joe W. Henry, Jr., Pulaski, for C. Murray Henderson, Warden. BURNETT, Chief Justice. Leighton filed his petition for habeas corpus in the early part of January, 1966, in the Criminal Court of Davidson County, Tennessee, and the same was transferred to the Circuit Court at Lawrence County pursuant to statute, T.C.A. § 23-1840. The case subsequent to that time through various motions has been twice before this Court. In an opinion of Leighton v. Henderson, 407 S.W.2d 177, we held that after habeas corpus had been granted, and pending its appeal to this Court, the prisoner would be allowed bail. Prior to the hearing of this petition in Lawrence County, the trial judge made certain statements, and as a result of which the Warden moved that the trial judge recuse himself and ask another trial judge to sit for him because of his incompetency or that he certify his incompetency to the *420 Governor. The basis of his motion was that some two years before this petition was filed the trial judge had written the State Board of Pardons and Parole advising them in part, `I personally feel that he has served sufficient time in the penitentiary and I unhesitatingly recommend that his sentence be commuted to time served so as to make him eligible for immediate parole." When the question came up as to when this petition for habeas corpus should be heard in a colloquy between counsel on the various sides and the court, the court among other things said, "I don't care what proof is in the record, if the Governor doesn't pardon this man, I am going to grant the petition, set the trial for June 2nd." Then there follows various and sundry statements between counsel and the court, and the court finally set the case not on June 2nd but on a later date because he was convinced at that time that bail could be granted pending the hearing on the habeas corpus. This rule was later corrected by this Court in an order holding that pending the hearing of a habeas corpus bail was not allowable. Leighton then, after having been let out on bail, pending the hearing on the habeas corpus, was picked up pursuant to our ruling and put back in prison until the case was heard on his petition for habeas corpus. The trial judge then in a lengthy finding of facts, found in the record, sustained Leighton's petition for habeas corpus, released him from prison on bail pending the appeal to this Court. Among other things in the memorandum opinion the trial judge said this: Thus it is, in view of these things the Warden now insists that it was error for the trial judge to try this case because he had before the trial thereof on occasions, hereinabove referred to, expressed himself as to what he would do with the case regardless of what the proof was. Counsel for Henderson still insist, in one of their assignments of error, that the trial judge erred in hearing this case and should have recused himself. We now take up this proposition only because we feel that this error should be sustained, and that it was error in view of the statements above quoted for the trial judge to pass upon the question wherein Leighton is a party on one side and Henderson, Warden of the State penitentiary, is the party on the other side. In the trial of any lawsuit the judge must be careful not to give an expression to any thought, or to infer what his opinion would be in favor or against either of the parties in the trial. The judge, of course, must be patient, yet firm, and not allow his personal feelings to enter into the trial of any lawsuit. This Court set forth the law as to the trial judge sitting on a case, when he has expressed an opinion, in very clear and succinct language in In re Cameron, 126 Tenn. 614, 151 S.W. 64. We can and should decide this lawsuit on what this Court said in In re Cameron, supra. What the trial court said in the instant case clearly indicates that the judge had already decided the matters involved. This Court said In re Cameron: Before making this statement the Court had quoted what is now our statute, T.C.A. § 17-201. The Court then went on to say: This Court by statute hereinbefore referred to (T.C.A. § 23-1840), has the authority when matters are brought to the attention of the Chief Justice to transfer these habeas corpus cases back to the court where they were originally tried and to create venue there rather than in the county in which the prisoner is situated. The purpose of passing this venue statute is obvious because in the county where the man was originally tried the officers and witnesses are there and all things of that kind. Of course, frequently since this Act was passed it happens that the trial judge to whom the case has been transferred finds that he should recuse himself, because he is accused of one thing and another by the prisoner in his petition for habeas corpus. Thus it is that it very frequently happens that the trial judge communicates this fact to the Chief Justice who in turn, under T.C.A. § 17-215, § 17-216 and § 17-323, appoints a special judge to hear the habeas corpus petition. Of course, throughout the history of this State different judges of adjoining districts have interchanged with each other, one trying a case for the other when he thought he was incompetent for different reasons, but has thus recused himself and got his brother in an adjoining circuit to sit for him. Likewise, if he can't do this and hasn't communicated the fact to the Chief Justice, under T.C.A. § 17-221 et seq., he can certify his disability to the Governor. The trial judge in the instant case, after expressing himself as he did here and after having the motion of the State for him to recuse himself, did not take advantage of any of these opportunities but went on and heard this trial. In doing so it is the unanimous opinion of this Court that he erred, and it is for this reason, and this alone, that this case must be reversed and remanded. In the trial of any lawsuit it is presupposed that a competent judge will preside and have charge of the case in which he passes on questions of pleading, evidence and procedure, and gives instructions to the jury or determines the lawsuit without the intervention of a jury. The purpose of Article 6, § 11 of our Constitution is to insure every litigant the cold neutrality of an impartial court. *422 We now revert again to In re Cameron, at page 662, 151 S.W. 77 where it was said: The statute referred to in this instance is the harmless error statute, T.C.A. § 27-117. Then again in In re Cameron, at pages 665, 151 S.W. at page 78, the following statement is made which is applicable here. It certainly seems possible and probable from this record that the trial judge herein, the one who tried Leighton in beginning in 1943, may be a witness on his behalf when this case is tried before a competent trial judge. T.C.A. § 24-107 provides that such a person is a competent witness subject to all rules of cross-examination and otherwise as any other witness. For the reasons herein stated this cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial before a competent judge as it must be originally tried before a trial judge who has not expressed himself one way or the other, and is not interested one way or the other in the outcome of the trial. This case must be first heard and passed on by such trial judge before an appellate court has the right to pass on the questions presented. Until this petition for habeas corpus is passed on by a competent judge it is necessary that the order granting bail herein should be revoked and that Leighton should be remanded to the custody of the Warden who will forthwith cause him to be confined in the State penitentiary pending further proceedings in this habeas corpus petition. The Court at the present time through the Chief Justice appoints the Honorable J. Fred Bibb, retired Criminal Judge of Knox County, to hear this petition for habeas corpus which can be set in the early days of June. The Chief Justice will write to the Honorable J. Fred Bibb a letter designating him to try this case and counsel for respective parties will communicate with Judge Bibb in reference to setting a trial date which could be set, as the Court understands it from communication with Judge Bibb, the first two or three days in June prior to the meeting of the State Bar Association. For reasons above stated the judgment herein is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.