Title: In re Disqualification of Rastatter

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rastatter, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2013-Ohio-4232.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF RASTATTER. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. BOYCE. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Rastatter, ___ Ohio St.3d ___,  
2013-Ohio-4232.] 
Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Disqualification of judge 
not warranted—Affiant failed to substantiate claims of bias or prejudice. 
(No. 13-AP-068—Decided August 12, 2013.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Clark County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. CR 08-CR-612. 
____________________ 
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Defendant Ramon Boyce has filed an affidavit with the clerk of 
this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Douglas M. Rastatter 
from presiding over any further proceedings in case No. 08-CR-612, now pending 
on Boyce’s petition for postconviction relief in the Court of Common Pleas of 
Clark County. 
{¶ 2} According to Boyce’s affidavit, Judge Rastatter has presided over 
four of Boyce’s previous trials, one of which resulted in a “large reversal.”  
Because of this history, Boyce claims that Judge Rastatter has a “predetermined 
hostile and fixed anticipatory feeling” toward him, and therefore the judge cannot 
act impartially in any proceeding involving Boyce. 
{¶ 3} Judge Rastatter has responded in writing to the allegations in 
Boyce’s affidavit, stating that the Ohio State Bar Association summarily 
dismissed Boyce’s grievance against the judge based on these same allegations.  
The judge further avers that he harbors no resentment or animosity toward Boyce, 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
that he will review the postconviction petition with objectivity and fairness, and 
that he will make his decision based solely on the evidence presented and the law. 
{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 
order the disqualification of Judge Rastatter. 
{¶ 5} While “[a] defendant’s experience before an allegedly biased judge 
in previous proceedings is an important factor to be weighed in a bias 
determination,” State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214, 2011-Ohio-2669, 951 
N.E.2d 381, ¶ 32, Boyce has failed to substantiate his claims that Judge 
Rastatter’s previous conduct is indicative of bias and that the judge continues to 
harbor a hostile feeling or spirit of ill will against him.  See In re Disqualification 
of O’Neill, 100 Ohio St.3d 1232, 2002-Ohio-7479, 798 N.E.2d 17, ¶ 14 (defining 
“bias or prejudice” as “a hostile feeling or spirit of ill-will * * * with the 
formation of a fixed anticipatory judgment on the part of the judge”). 
{¶ 6} First, it is well established that absent a showing of actual bias, “a 
judge who presided over prior proceedings involving one or more parties 
presently before the court is not thereby disqualified from presiding over later 
proceedings involving the same parties.”  In re Disqualification of Aubry, 117 
Ohio St.3d 1245, 2006-Ohio-7231, 884 N.E.2d 1095, ¶ 7.  Similarly, in general, 
“a judge who presided at trial is not disqualified from ruling on a subsequent 
petition for post-conviction relief.”  In re Disqualification of Basinger, 77 Ohio 
St.3d 1237, 674 N.E.2d 351 (1996).  And finally, bias against a party cannot be 
presumed merely because a judge was reversed on appeal.  See, e.g., In re 
Disqualification of Floyd, 135 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2012-Ohio-6336, 986 N.E.2d 10, 
¶ 10 (that a trial judge’s decision “was reversed in a critical opinion by the 
appeals court does not imply that she will be biased against [the appellants] or 
somehow retaliate against them”).  Thus, without evidence of actual bias, the fact 
that Judge Rastatter has presided over previous cases involving Boyce is not 
grounds for disqualification. 
January Term, 2013 
3 
 
{¶ 7} Second, Boyce claims that in these previous proceedings, Judge 
Rastatter made “biased comments” against him, insulted him, and even 
disrespected his mother, but Boyce has not submitted any examples of these 
alleged comments.  In affidavit-of-disqualification proceedings, the burden falls 
on the affiant to submit specific allegations of bias or prejudice, see R.C. 
2701.03(B)(1), and an affiant is generally “required to submit evidence beyond 
the affidavit of disqualification supporting the allegations contained therein.”  In 
re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 135 Ohio St.3d 1212, 2012-Ohio-6341, 985 
N.E.2d 494, ¶ 6.  Here, Boyce not only failed to set forth any specific examples of 
the judge’s allegedly disparaging comments, but he also failed to submit a 
transcript or other evidence supporting these allegations.  As a result, there is no 
way to determine whether Judge Rastatter made the comments or whether they 
reflect bias or prejudice against Boyce.  On this record, Boyce’s vague and 
unsubstantiated allegations are insufficient for a finding of bias.  See In re 
Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606, 522 N.E.2d 460 (1988). 
{¶ 8} Finally, the majority of the remaining allegations in Boyce’s 
affidavit are dedicated to criticizing Judge Rastatter’s previous legal rulings.  An 
affidavit of disqualification, however, is not the mechanism for determining 
whether a judge has complied with the law, and it is well settled that a party’s 
disagreement or dissatisfaction with a court’s legal rulings, even if those rulings 
may be erroneous, is not grounds for disqualification.  In re Disqualification of 
Floyd, 101 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2003-Ohio-7351, 803 N.E.2d 818, ¶ 4.  Procedures 
exist by which appellate courts may review and, if necessary, correct any legal 
errors.  In re Disqualification of Russo, 110 Ohio St.3d 1208, 2005-Ohio-7146, 
850 N.E.2d 713, ¶ 6.  Here, Boyce has failed to indicate whether any of these 
issues were even raised in his appeals.  Without more, Judge Rastatter’s various 
adverse legal rulings against Boyce cannot be evidence of bias or prejudice. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
{¶ 9} “The statutory right to seek disqualification of a judge is an 
extraordinary remedy.  A judge is presumed to follow the law and not to be 
biased, and the appearance of bias or prejudice must be compelling to overcome 
these presumptions.”  In re Disqualification of George, 100 Ohio St.3d 1241, 
2003-Ohio-5489, 798 N.E.2d 23, ¶ 5.  Because of the lack of supporting evidence 
in Boyce’s affidavit—and the judge’s pledge to hear the pending motion fairly 
and impartially—those presumptions have not been overcome in this case. 
{¶ 10} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Rastatter. 
________________________