Title: In re Judge James T. Hill

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 186A15  
FILED 6 NOVEMBER 2015 
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 14-169 & 14-192 
JAMES T. HILL, Respondent 
 
 This matter is before the Court pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376 and -377 upon 
a recommendation by the Judicial Standards Commission entered 6 May 2015 that 
Respondent James T. Hill, a Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court 
Division, Judicial District 14, State of North Carolina, be publicly reprimanded for 
conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(3), and 3A(4) of the North Carolina 
Code of Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice 
that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376.  This 
matter was calendared for argument in the Supreme Court on 2 September 2015, but 
determined on the record without briefs or oral argument pursuant to Rule 30(f) of 
the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 2(c) of the Rules for 
Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of the Judicial Standards Commission. 
 
No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or Respondent. 
 
ORDER 
 
By the recommendation of the North Carolina Judicial Standards Commission 
(Commission), the issue before this Court is whether James T. Hill (Respondent), a 
Judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Judicial District 14, 
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
should be publicly reprimanded for conduct in violation of Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(3), 
and 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and conduct prejudicial to 
the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation 
of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376.  Respondent does not contest the facts or oppose the 
Commission’s recommendation that he be publicly reprimanded.    
On 2 February 2015, the Commission’s Counsel filed a statement of charges 
alleging that Respondent had engaged in inappropriate conduct while presiding over 
divorce proceedings in the matter of Morrison v. Morrison, Durham County File No. 
14-CVD-0047, by  
exhibiting a failure to remain patient, dignified, and 
courteous to the parties appearing before him; making 
inappropriate comments to the parties before him; 
misstating the law when threatening future contempt 
proceedings; improperly exercising his contempt powers 
thereby denying multiple parties their fundamental rights 
of due process; and failing to maintain order and decorum 
in the proceedings before him.   
 
Respondent filed a motion on 5 February 2015 to extend time to file an answer, 
which the Commission granted on the same day, thereby allowing Respondent until 
30 March 2015 to file his response.  Opposing counsel did not object to the motion.   
On 24 March 2015, the Commission notified Respondent that a hearing would take 
place on 10 April 2015.  On 10 April 2015, Respondent and the Commission Counsel 
filed joint evidentiary and disciplinary stipulations under Commission Rule 22.   
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
On 6 May 2015, the Commission made its recommendation, which contained 
the following stipulated findings of fact:  
STIPULATED EVIDENTIARY FACTS 
1. 
The investigative panel of the Commission 
alleged that, in the matter of Durham County File No. 14-
CVD-47, Morrison v. Morrison, Respondent engaged in 
conduct inappropriate to his judicial office by: 
a. exhibiting a failure to remain patient, dignified, 
and courteous to the parties appearing before 
him; 
b. making inappropriate comments to the parties 
before him; 
c. misstating the law when threatening future 
contempt proceedings; 
d. improperly exercising his contempt powers 
thereby 
denying 
multiple 
parties 
their 
fundamental rights of due process. 
 
2. 
Respondent presided over a contentious 
multi-day custody hearing in Morrison v. Morrison, which 
concluded on 7 August 2014[.]  Durham County routinely 
records each of its domestic court sessions with audio and 
visual equipment. The recording in Durham County File 
No. 14-CVD-47 shows, after hearing all the evidence and 
before announcing a decision, Respondent[ ]was not 
patient, dignified, nor courteous with the parties before 
him.  In a raised voice and sharp tone, Respondent 
proceeded to lecture both Mr. and Mrs. Morrison. During 
this soliloquy, Respondent made several inappropriate 
comments including repeatedly and loudly chastising the 
parties that they were acting like idiots. Respondent 
admitted during his 22 December 2014 interview with 
Commission staff, that he “said all of those things.” 
 
3. 
When Respondent addressed the parties on 7 
August 2014, he threatened them with contempt if either 
party violated the Court's order. “And I better not hear 
either of you saying anything negative about the other 
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-4- 
party or y’all gonna get a little trip to the Durham County 
Bed and Breakfast for contempt of court. And there is no 
appeal, you stay until I say you get out.” 
 
 
4. 
Respondent's frequent references to the local 
jail facility as the “Durham County Bed and Breakfast” 
were inappropriate for court. Respondent's statement that 
there is no appeal and the parties would not be released 
until Respondent said so, is a misstatement of the law. A 
person found in criminal or civil contempt may appeal in 
the manner provided for appeals in other criminal or civil 
actions. See N.C.G.S. § 5A-17 and § 5A-24 (italics omitted). 
During his interview with Commission staff, Respondent 
admitted, “that was not accurate and I should not have said 
that.”  Respondent has acknowledged that he misstated the 
law when he threatened the parties with future contempt 
stating that there would be no appeal, but was attempting 
to warn the parties that future conduct could be punished 
by the contempt powers of the Court and Respondent 
wanted the parties to be aware of the consequences of 
future conduct.  
 
5. 
Respondent, when addressing Ms. Morrison's 
contemptuous behavior following a heated verbal exchange 
[between Ms. Morrison and Respondent]1, failed to respect 
and comply with Chapter 5A of the N.C. General Statutes. 
Respondent has indicated his intention was to hold Ms. 
Morrison in direct criminal contempt, though he used a 
civil commitment form that was available in the courtroom. 
However, Respondent failed to follow proper procedure for 
either civil or criminal contempt. In the mishandling of his 
contempt powers, Respondent did not afford Ms. 
[Morrison] the full right to be heard according to the law, 
which resulted in a substantial violation to Ms. Morrison’s 
due process rights.   
 
6. 
Respondent also failed to respect and comply 
                                            
1 Here, the video recording of the hearing shows that Respondent and Ms. Morrison 
engaged in a verbal exchange.   
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-5- 
with the applicable law when handling the disruptive 
behavior of Ms. Morrison's family members in court on 
August 7, 2014. Again, Respondent did not follow proper 
procedure for either civil or criminal contempt when he 
filed Commitment Orders for Civil Contempt for both 
Gloria Woods and Sherrod Smith.   
 
7. 
The effects from Respondent's misconduct in 
this matter have been exacerbated by the video footage 
capturing the events of this hearing. Because Respondent's 
comments and Ms. Morrison's outburst were captured on 
video, this incident was highly publicized with media 
coverage both locally and nationwide. In addition to the 
facts as set forth in this Stipulation, Respondent agrees the 
Durham County court video recording of this matter will 
also be included in the evidentiary record for these Judicial 
Standards inquiries. 
 
8. 
Respondent has a good reputation in his 
community. In the most recent Judicial Performance 
Evaluation, Respondent received an overall performance 
rating of 4.19.  Of the 120 Judges evaluated, the average 
was 3.56. The actions identified by the Commission as 
misconduct by Respondent appear to be isolated and do not 
form any sort of recurring pattern of misconduct. 
Respondent 
has 
been 
fully 
cooperative 
with 
the 
Commission’s 
investigation, 
voluntarily 
providing 
information about the underlying legal matter and fully 
and openly admitting error. 
 
9. 
Respondent, as a trial judge in a custody 
action, is to be guided by the principal [sic] of the “best 
interest of the child.” Respondent acknowledges that 
during his “soliloquy” that he made several inappropriate 
comments including repeatedly telling the parties that 
they were acting like idiots. The comments by Respondent, 
though inappropriate, were an attempt by Respondent to 
make the parties aware the most important person 
involved in the hearing was the minor child. Respondent's 
comments, though inappropriate, were an attempt by 
Respondent to act in the best interest of the minor child. 
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-6- 
 
10. 
Respondent agreed to stipulations of fact and 
disposition to bring closure to this matter and because of 
his concern for protecting the integrity of the court system. 
While Respondent believed he was acting within the scope 
of his discretion and that he was acting to preserve the 
integrity of the Court, with the benefit of hindsight, he now 
admits and understands his error and that in fact his 
actions, even if unintentional and not motivated by malice 
or ill-intent, did constitute conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into 
disrepute although he did not intend for that to happen. 
Respondent believed he was punishing Ms. Morrison and 
her family for direct criminal contempt which may be 
summarily implemented pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 5A-13.  
Respondent now understands every person held in 
contempt under this statute is entitled to both notice and 
an opportunity to respond. In all future dealings, 
Respondent will make every effort to ensure that every 
person legally interested in a contempt  proceeding receives 
their opportunity to be heard according to the law. 
 
11. 
Respondent was represented by counsel in 
these proceedings and entitled to go forward with the 
hearing scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on 10 April 2015. However, 
after having discussed the matter with his counsel and 
reflected upon the circumstances that have brought us to 
this 
juncture, 
Respondent 
agreed 
to 
accept 
a 
recommendation of public reprimand from the Commission 
and to acknowledge that the conduct set out in the 
stipulation establishes by clear and convincing evidence 
that this conduct is in violation of the North Carolina Code 
of Judicial Conduct and is prejudicial to the administration 
of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in 
violation of [N.C.]G.S. § 7A-376[(b)]. 
 
12. 
Respondent 
acknowledges 
the 
ultimate 
jurisdiction for the discipline of judges is vested with the 
NC Supreme Court pursuant to Chapter 7A, Article 30 of 
the North Carolina General Statutes, which may either 
accept, reject, or modify any disciplinary recommendation 
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-7- 
from the Commission. (citations to Commission Exhibits 
omitted).   
 
 
The Commission adopted stipulations that addressed certain procedural issues 
and established the Commission's jurisdiction over the hearing.  In addition to 
findings of fact, the Commission made the following conclusions of law based on clear 
and convincing evidence:  
1. 
In his adjudication of the matter of Durham 
County File No. 14-C VD-47, Morrison v. Morrison, 
Respondent exhibited a failure to remain patient, dignified, 
and courteous to the parties appearing before him; made 
inappropriate comments to the parties before him; 
misstated the law when threatening future contempt 
proceedings; and acted in violation of Chapter 5A of the 
North Carolina General Statutes, effectively denying those 
he held in contempt of their due process rights. 
 
2. 
Respondent’s 
actions, 
as 
described 
in 
stipulated Findings of Fact One (1) through Seven (7), 
constitute violations of Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 3A(1), 
Canon 3A(3), and Canon 3A(4) of the North Carolina Code 
of Judicial Conduct. Respondent’s actions constitute 
conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that 
brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of 
N.C.G.S. [§ 7A- 376]. 
 
3. 
Respondent’s 
conduct, 
as 
described 
in 
stipulated Findings of Fact Eight (8) through Twelve (12), 
is recognized by the Commission as evidence of his 
cooperation with the Commission in its investigation, his 
recognition and acknowledgement that his actions were 
inappropriate 
and 
his 
promise 
to 
avoid 
similar 
inappropriate conduct in the future. 
 
When reviewing a recommendation from the Commission, the Supreme Court 
“acts as a court of original jurisdiction, rather than in its typical capacity as an 
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-8- 
appellate court.” In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 428, 722 S.E.2d 496, 503 (2012) 
(order) (quoting In re Badgett, 362 N.C. 202, 207, 657 S.E.2d. 346, 349 (2008) (order)).  
We have discretion to “adopt the Commission’s findings of fact if they are supported 
by clear and convincing evidence, or [we] may make [our] own findings.”  Id.  at 428, 
722 S.E.2d at 503 (alterations in original) (quoting In re Badgett, 362 N.C. at 206, 657 
S.E.2d at 349).  The scope of our review is to “first determine if the Commission’s 
findings of fact are adequately supported by clear and convincing evidence, and in 
turn, whether those findings support its conclusions of law.”  Id. at 429, 722 S.E.2d 
at 503 (quoting In re Badgett, 362 N.C. at 207, 657 S.E.2d at 349). 
After careful review, this Court concludes that the Commission’s findings of fact 
are supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence in the record. In addition, we 
conclude that the Commission’s findings of fact support its conclusions of law. We 
therefore accept the Commission’s findings and adopt them as our own. Based upon those 
findings and conclusions and the recommendation of the Commission, we conclude and 
adjudge that Respondent should be publicly reprimanded. 
Therefore, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376(b) and -377(a5), it is ordered that 
Respondent James T. Hill be PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED for conduct prejudicial to the 
administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of 
N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b) and that violates Canons 1, 2A, 3A(1), 3A(3), and 3A(4) of the 
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct.   
By order of the Court in Conference, this the 5th day of November, 2015.   
IN RE HILL 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-9- 
 
 
 
 
 
s/Ervin, J.  
 
 
 
 
For the Court 
 
 
       
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North 
Carolina, this the 5th day of November, 2015.  
 
 
 
 
 
CHRISTIE S. CAMERON ROEDER 
 
 
 
 
Clerk of the Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
s/M.C. Hackney 
 
 
 
 
Assistant Clerk