Title: In re Disqualification of Marsh

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF MARSH. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. ARNETT. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Marsh (1999), 88 Ohio St.3d 1207.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Judge quoted from Bible as a deciding 
factor in her determination of an appropriate sentence — Judge’s comments 
not a product of bias or prejudice. 
(No. 99-AP-012 — Decided February 22, 1999.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas 
case Nos. B-9708351 and B-9800637. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification filed by Charles H. Bartlett, 
Jr., counsel for defendant James F. Arnett, seeks the disqualification of Judge 
Melba D. Marsh from further proceedings regarding the above-captioned case. 
 
In January 1998, Judge Marsh sentenced the defendant to consecutive terms 
totaling fifty-one years following the defendant’s plea of guilty to ten counts of 
rape involving a minor child under thirteen years of age and one count of 
pandering.  In announcing her sentence, Judge Marsh quoted from the Bible as a 
deciding factor in her determination of an appropriate sentence.  The defendant 
appealed the sentence imposed by Judge Marsh, contending that the judge 
considered her religious beliefs as a factor in imposing the sentence, contrary to 
law.  On February 5, 1999, the court of appeals agreed with the defendant’s 
 
2
contention and concluded that Judge Marsh impermissibly factored religion into 
her sentencing decision.  The court vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded 
the case to the trial court for resentencing. 
 
Affiant now contends that Judge Marsh should be disqualified from the 
resentencing hearing because she has “an obvious and apparent bias and prejudice 
against the defendant” that creates a reasonable question regarding her impartiality.  
Judge Marsh denies any animosity toward the defendant and states that she will 
follow the law in resentencing him. 
 
Having reviewed the record before me, which includes a transcript of the 
initial sentencing hearing and the opinion of the court of appeals, I find that Judge 
Marsh’s disqualification is neither necessary nor appropriate.  The court of appeals 
held that Judge Marsh’s use of religion as a factor in imposing the sentence was 
inappropriate and contrary to law under these circumstances.  However, as noted 
by Judge Hildebrandt in his dissenting opinion, there is no indication that Judge 
Marsh’s comments were the product of any bias or animosity toward the 
defendant.  Other than the statements made by Judge Marsh at the sentencing 
hearing, affiant has failed to provide any evidence of bias or animosity, and I 
cannot conclude that these statements alone affirmatively demonstrate the 
existence of bias or prejudice.  Moreover, I do not find it necessary to disqualify 
Judge Marsh from the resentencing hearing to avoid the appearance of impropriety 
 
3
or because her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  Her written response 
to the affidavit of disqualification makes it clear that she understands the mandate 
of the appellate court’s opinion and will follow the applicable law in resentencing 
the defendant. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found not well taken 
and denied.  The case shall proceed before Judge Marsh.