Title: In re Disqualification of Mayberry

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mayberry, 127 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2009-Ohio-7198.] 
 
 
IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MAYBERRY. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. HOOK. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Mayberry,  
127 Ohio St.3d 1238, 2009-Ohio-7198.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification denied. 
(No. 09-AP-102 — Decided November 4, 2009.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Wood County Court of Common Pleas 
Case No. 2009-CR-08-271. 
__________________ 
MOYER, C.J. 
{¶ 1} Drew A. Hanna, counsel for the defendant, Denise Hook, has filed 
an affidavit with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify 
Judge Alan R. Mayberry from further proceedings in case No. 2009-CR-271, a 
criminal matter in the Court of Common Pleas of Wood County. 
{¶ 2} Hanna states that on August 28, 2009, Judge Mayberry showed 
him a letter that the judge had received from a witness for the state.  According to 
Hanna, the witness attacked the defendant in the letter and asserted facts as to her 
guilt.  Hanna believes that Judge Mayberry should be disqualified because he may 
have been influenced by the letter, particularly because the defendant waived a 
jury trial and the judge would now be the trier of fact. 
{¶ 3} Judge Mayberry has responded in writing to the concerns raised in 
the affidavit.  The judge admits that on August 18, 2009, he received a letter from 
Darrin Hook, who stated that he was the defendant’s husband.  The judge explains 
that he disclosed his receipt of the letter at the next pretrial and allowed Hanna 
and the prosecutor to read the letter.  The judge states that he did not know that 
Mr. Hook would be a witness in the case until after he received the letter.  
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Moreover, the judge notes that no issues have been addressed regarding Mr. 
Hook’s ability to testify against his wife.  The judge also notes that defendant 
decided to waive a jury trial and try the case to the court after having notice of the 
letter.  Finally, Judge Mayberry maintains that he has not been influenced by the 
letter and will not consider any information contained therein in presiding over 
defendant’s case. 
{¶ 4} For the following reasons, I find no basis for ordering the 
disqualification of Judge Mayberry.  First, it is well settled that an affidavit of 
disqualification must be filed as soon as possible after the affiant becomes aware 
of circumstances that support disqualification, and the failure to do so may result 
in waiver of the objection.  In re Disqualification of Pepple (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 
606, 546 N.E.2d 1298.  Attorney Hanna has known about the letter since August 
28, 2009.  Yet Hanna waited nearly two months, until October 21, 2009, before 
filing the affidavit of disqualification with this court.  If Hanna believed that the 
letter warranted the judge’s disqualification, he should have filed the affidavit in a 
more timely fashion.  Moreover, the fact that Hanna decided – after becoming 
aware of the letter – to try defendant’s case to the bench undercuts his claim that 
Judge Mayberry has been improperly influenced by the letter.  See In re 
Disqualification of Glickman, 100 Ohio St.3d 1217, 2002-Ohio-7471, 798 N.E.2d 
5. 
{¶ 5} Second, Judge Mayberry’s receipt of the letter does not compel his 
disqualification.  Judges often receive letters from interested nonparties 
attempting to persuade the judge to their viewpoint or to bring information to the 
court’s attention.  See State ex rel. Beacon Journal Pub. Co. v. Whitmore (1998), 
83 Ohio St.3d 61, 63, 697 N.E.2d 640.  Because it is not reasonable to expect a 
trial judge to control all correspondence that is sent to the judge by persons 
interested in a pending case, I have previously advised judges to promptly notify 
the parties upon receipt of any ex parte communication and inform them of the 
January Term, 2009 
3 
 
substance of the communication.  In re Disqualification of Pontious (2001), 94 
Ohio St.3d 1235, 763 N.E.2d 603.  Notification affords the parties an opportunity 
to respond to the ex parte communication and place any objections on the record.  
See generally Rule 2.9(B) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 
{¶ 6} Judge Mayberry followed this practice to the letter in this case.  He 
promptly disclosed his receipt of the letter and allowed counsel to examine its 
contents.  Thus, I see no bias or prejudice to any of the parties flowing from the 
judge’s receipt of the ex parte letter.  See In re Disqualification of Stucki, No. 09-
AP-083 (rejecting a similar allegation where judge received an unsolicited letter 
and no evidence existed that judge had considered the letter).  On the record 
before me, no reasonable and objective observer would harbor serious doubts 
about Judge Mayberry’s impartiality.  In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio 
St.3d 1227, 2004-Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8 (setting forth the proper test 
for disqualifying a judge). 
{¶ 7} As I have said, “[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.  Those presumptions have not been 
overcome in this case. 
{¶ 8} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 
denied.  The case may proceed before Judge Mayberry. 
______________________