Title: In re Disqualification of Knece

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF KNECE. 
THE STATE OF OHIO v. STARKEY. 
[Cite as In re Disqualification of Knece (1997), 81 Ohio St.3d 1212.] 
Judges — Affidavit of disqualification — Disqualification not required when judge 
was previously the elected prosecuting attorney at the time defendant was 
indicted, convicted, and sentenced — No violation of Canon 4(E)(1)(b). 
(No. 97-AP-057 — Decided May 2, 1997.) 
ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Pickaway County  
Court of Common Pleas case No. 94-CR-249. 
 
MOYER, C.J.  This affidavit of disqualification is filed by James R. 
Kingsley, counsel for defendant Charlie Starkey, seeking the disqualification of 
Judge P. Randall Knece from presiding over a probation violation proceeding 
regarding defendant. 
 
Affiant contends that Judge Knece should be disqualified from the 
underlying matter because he was the elected prosecuting attorney at the time the 
defendant was indicted, convicted, and sentenced and because his former deputy is 
representing the state in this proceeding.  Because of this relationship and the fact 
that the Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office is a small office, affiant 
asserts that Judge Knece’s continued participation in this action creates an 
appearance of impropriety that mandates the judge’s disqualification from this 
matter. 
 
Canon 4(E)(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, formerly Canon 
3(C)(1)(b), amended effective May 1, 1997, states, in part:  “A judge should 
disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality 
might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where * * * 
[t]he judge served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy [or] a lawyer with 
 
2
whom the judge previously practiced law served during such association as a 
lawyer concerning the matter * * *.”  The commentary to the Code amplifies this 
provision as it applies to government lawyers, including prosecutors, by stating:  
“A lawyer in a government agency does not ordinarily have an association with 
other lawyers employed by that agency * * *; a judge formerly employed by a 
government agency, however, should disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding 
if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned because of such 
association.” 
 
Affiant is correct in asserting that Judge Knece was associated with the 
state’s attorney in this case by virtue of the fact that the judge was the elected 
prosecuting attorney in a small office at the time that the defendant was prosecuted 
by one of his deputies.  However, while affiant speculates that Judge Knece must 
have had some exposure to the underlying case as a result of this association, 
Judge Knece specifically denies any participation in the defendant’s prosecution 
and states that he does not recall discussing this case with his former assistants.  
Accordingly, I cannot conclude that his disqualification is mandated by Canon 
4(E)(1)(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and the record does not demonstrate 
the existence of an interest on the part of Judge Knece in the underlying case that 
clearly and adversely impacts on the ability of the defendant to have a fair hearing 
before the judge. 
 
For these reasons, the affidavit of disqualification is found to be not well 
taken and is denied.  The matter shall proceed before Judge Knece.