Title: In re Disqualification of Adams

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Adams, 100 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2002-Ohio-7474.] 
 
 
 
 
Opinion in Chambers, per Moyer, C.J. 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF ADAMS. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. GOFF. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Adams, 100 Ohio St.3d 1223, 2002-Ohio-7474.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification not required where judge found 
affiant’s codefendant guilty. 
(No. 02-AP-046 — Decided May 3, 2002.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Summit County Common Pleas Court case No. 
01061390. 
__________________ 
 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶1} 
This affidavit of disqualification was filed by John T. Goff seeking the 
disqualification of Judge John Adams from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned 
case. 
{¶2} 
Affiant asserts that Judge Adams should be disqualified from presiding over his 
trial because the judge previously found his codefendant guilty of complicity to commit sexual 
battery.  In finding the codefendant guilty, Judge Adams concluded that the state had proven, 
beyond a reasonable doubt, that affiant committed the offense of sexual battery.  Affiant 
contends that this finding demonstrates that Judge Adams prejudged affiant’s guilt and maintains 
that the judge’s earlier finding will unduly influence the jury in the underlying case. 
{¶3} 
Applicable to affiant’s claim of disqualification is State v. D’Ambrosio (1993), 67 
Ohio St.3d 185, 616 N.E.2d 909. In D’Ambrosio, the defendant sought reversal of his capital 
conviction and sentence based, in part, on the fact that a member of the three-judge panel, which 
convicted him, had previously presided over the trial of a codefendant and, in so doing, acquired 
January Term, 2003 
2 
knowledge of the facts of the underlying case and formed an opinion regarding the veracity of a 
key prosecution witness.  In that case, a unanimous court concluded that a judge is not required 
to recuse himself simply because he acquired knowledge of the facts during a prior proceeding.  
More important for purposes of this matter, the court held that even if the trial judge had formed 
an opinion regarding the credibility of the state’s witness, that would be no guarantee that the 
judge would believe the witness at the second trial.  Id. at 188-189, 616 N.E.2d 909. 
{¶4} 
In the trial of affiant’s codefendant, Judge Adams found that the state had 
established, beyond a reasonable doubt, all elements of the offense of complicity to commit 
sexual battery.  This included evidence that affiant committed sexual battery against the victim.  
The judge’s finding in this regard was based on the evidence presented at the prior trial, was 
related directly to an element of the offense with which the codefendant was charged, and was 
essential to support a verdict of guilty. 
{¶5} 
Affiant presents no evidence to demonstrate affirmatively that Judge Adams will 
be prejudiced by his findings in the first trial.  Although Judge Adams has formed an opinion 
regarding affiant’s guilt, that opinion is based on evidence presented at an earlier trial that was 
not controverted by the defendant in that case.  At the underlying trial, affiant will have the 
opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses and present evidence to dispute the 
state’s claim that affiant committed the offenses with which he is charged.  Moreover, the factual 
determination of whether the state satisfied its burden of proof in this case will be made by a 
different trier of fact, and there are adequate safeguards, such as voir dire and precautionary jury 
instructions, to ensure that the trier of fact is not unduly influenced by the prior finding in the 
codefendant’s trial. 
{¶6} 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken and 
denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Adams. 
__________________