Title: State Ex Rel. Bowman v. Crookham

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

731 P.2d 1025 (1987)
302 Or. 544
STATE of Oregon ex rel. Laura Lynn Bowman, Plaintiff-Relator,
v.
The Honorable Charles CROOKHAM, Presiding Circuit Court Judge of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Oregon, Defendant.
C8501-34199; S32524.

Supreme Court of Oregon, In Banc.
Argued and Submitted May 6, 1986.
Decided January 21, 1987.
John R. Faust, Jr., Portland, argued the cause and filed the briefs for defendant. With him on the briefs was Schwabe, Williamson, Wyatt, Moore & Roberts, Portland.
J. William Savage, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for plaintiff-relator. With him on the brief was Rieke, Geil & Savage, P.C., Portland.
John E. Frohnmayer, Portland, filed an amicus curiae brief for Oregon Trial Lawyers Association. With him on the brief was Tonkin, Torp, Galen, Marmaduke & Booth, Portland.
*1026 GILLETTE, Justice.
This is one of three mandamus cases decided this date[1] involving the constitutionality and application of ORS 14.250-14.270, the judicial disqualification statutes. In this case, relator, a defendant in a felony prosecution, filed a motion for a change of judge on the ground that the particular trial judge to whom her case had been assigned for trial was prejudiced against her and her attorneys. When orally notified of relator's intent to file the motion, defendant, the then presiding judge of the Circuit Court for Multnomah County, informed counsel that the motion would be denied on the ground that the judicial disqualification statutes are unconstitutional. Defendant declined to schedule a hearing on the question, except before the challenged judge. Relator then brought the present mandamus proceeding. We order that a peremptory write issue commanding defendant to grant the relator's motion for change of judge or to hold a hearing.
The judicial disqualification statutes are constitutional. State ex rel. Oliver v. Crookham, 302 Or. 533, 731 P.2d 1018 (1987). The remaining issues in this case are procedural: (1) Were relator's motion and supporting affidavit adequate on their face to invoke ORS 14.250-14.270? (2) If they were, what procedure should defendant follow in disposing of the motion?
Relator's affidavit in support of her motion for change of judge recites (with the name of the particular judge omitted):
The issue, under ORS 14.250-14.270, is whether there exists a reasonable belief that a judge is prejudiced against any party or attorney, or the interest of any party or attorney appearing in such cause, matter or proceeding. "Prejudice," as used in the statutes, refers not only to prejudgment of the issues but also to any prejudgment or bias as to a party or attorney. *1027 The term cannot, however, be read so broadly as to subsume any views as to a judge's judicial competency. State ex rel Oliver v. Crookham, supra. Counsel in the present case has failed to recognize the distinction. Most of the allegations in the affidavit are an unfortunate assault on the judge as a person, rather than a discussion of the reasons that counsel has a good faith belief that this relator cannot receive a fair trial in this case. See State ex rel Lovell v. Weiss, 250 Or. 252, 257-258, 430 P.2d 357, 442 P.2d 241 (1968).
On the other hand, certain allegations in paragraph 8 of the affidavit relating to the judge's alleged prejudice against criminal defendants might be sufficient, if made in good faith and based on factors other than those listed in the other paragraphs of the affidavit. Relator is entitled to a hearing on this question or to a change of judge. The hearing, if one is held, must be before someone other than the judge who is the subject of the affidavit. State ex rel Lovell v. Weiss, supra, 250 Or. at 257, 442 P.2d 241.
Peremptory writ to issue.
[1]  The others are State ex rel. Piper and Wedge v. Crookham, 302 Or. 549, 731 P.2d 1027 (1987) and State ex rel. Oliver v. Crookham, 302 Or. 533, 731 P.2d 1018 (1987).