Title: In re Disqualification of Henry

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Henry, 88 Ohio St.3d 1218, 1999-Ohio-14.] 
 
 
 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF HENRY. 
IN RE LORTIE. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Henry (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1218.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge will not be disqualified simply 
because he formed an opinion regarding the veracity of a potential witness 
while presiding over a related case — Recusal not required when the 
evidence upon which the judge’s opinion was based did not come from an 
extrajudicial source. 
(No. 99-AP-119 — Decided December 14, 1999.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Geauga County Juvenile Court case No. 
99JD000392. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by John Lortie seeks 
the disqualification of Judge Charles E. Henry from further proceedings regarding 
the above-captioned case. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge Henry should be disqualified from presiding 
over the adjudicatory hearing because, in ruling on a motion to suppress, the judge 
expressed an opinion regarding affiant’s credibility and that of two police officers.  
In arguing for Judge Henry’s disqualification, affiant’s counsel attempts to 
distinguish this circumstance from the holding in State v. D’Ambrosio (1993), 67 
 
 
2
Ohio St.3d 185, 188-189, 616 N.E.2d 909, 913.  However, in D’Ambrosio, a 
unanimous Supreme Court held that the trial judge would not be disqualified from 
presiding over a pending case simply because he formed an opinion regarding the 
veracity of a potential witness while presiding over a related case.  The court went 
on to note that recusal was not required, since the evidence upon which the judge’s 
opinion was based did not come to the judge from an extrajudicial source.  See 
D’Ambrosio at 188, 616 N.E.2d at 913. 
 
Similarly, Judge Henry’s opinions of the veracity of witnesses who may 
testify at the adjudicatory hearing were formed from his consideration of testimony 
and other evidence presented during the hearing on the motion to suppress, and his 
statement of that opinion was made in support of his ruling on the motion to 
suppress.  I cannot conclude that this statement demonstrates a bias or prejudice on 
the part of Judge Henry that mandates his disqualification from the adjudicatory 
hearing. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Henry.