Title: Inquiry Concerning a Judge, No. 15-222

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA 
No. 370A16  
Filed 5 May 2017 
IN RE: INQUIRY CONCERNING A JUDGE, NO. 15-222 
DAVID Q. LABARRE, 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 26 September 2016 
that Respondent David Q. LaBarre, an Emergency Judge of the General Court of 
Justice, be censured for conduct in violation of Canons 1 and 2A 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 22 March 2017, 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 
(2015). 
 
No counsel for Judicial Standards Commission or Respondent. 
 
ORDER 
The issue before this Court is whether Judge David Q. LaBarre (Respondent) 
should be censured for violations of Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of 
Judicial Conduct and for conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-2- 
brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. § 7A-376(b).  
Respondent has not challenged the findings of fact made by the Judicial Standards 
Commission (the Commission) or opposed the Commission’s recommendation that he 
be censured by this Court. 
On 25 April 2016, the Commission Counsel filed a Statement of Charges 
against Respondent alleging that he had 
engaged in conduct inappropriate to his judicial office 
when, on December 16, 2015, he drove his vehicle 
recklessly and while substantially impaired, putting at risk 
his own life and the lives of others [and that] Respondent’s 
belligerent, offensive, and denigrating behavior towards 
the responding law enforcement officers and emergency 
personnel was outrageous and unbecoming of a judicial 
officer, bringing into question whether it is appropriate for 
the Respondent to continue to serve as an Emergency 
Judge. 
 
According to the allegations in the Statement of Charges, Respondent’s driving while 
substantially impaired and belligerent behavior towards law enforcement officers 
and emergency personnel violated Canons 1 and 2A of the North Carolina Code of 
Judicial Conduct.  As a result, Commission Counsel asserted that Respondent’s 
actions “constitute[d] conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings 
the judicial office into disrepute, or otherwise constitutes grounds for disciplinary 
proceedings pursuant to Article 30 of Chapter 7A of the General Statutes of North 
Carolina.”   
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-3- 
 
On 3 June 2016, Respondent filed an answer in which he admitted the factual 
allegations in the Statement of Charges and expressed remorse “for this 
uncharacteristic lapse in judgment.”  On 2 August 2016, Respondent and Commission 
Counsel filed a number of joint evidentiary, factual, and disciplinary stipulations as 
permitted by Commission Rule 22 that tended to support a decision to censure 
Respondent.  Also, Respondent “voluntarily resigned his commission as an 
Emergency Judge, and agree[d] not to seek another commission in the future.”  On 
12 August 2016, the Commission heard this matter.   
 
On 26 September 2016, the Commission filed a Recommendation of Judicial 
Discipline, in which it made the following findings of fact: 
 
1. 
Respondent served honorably as a District 
Court Judge in Durham County from 1978 until 1994.  He 
was appointed Chief District Court Judge on 3 January 
1985 and served as Chief District Court Judge of Durham 
County from 3 January 1985 through 12 January 1990.  
Respondent was elected and served honorably as a 
Superior Court Judge in Durham County from 1994 until 
his retirement in 2002.  Respondent was commissioned by 
the Governor as an Emergency Superior Court Judge and 
an Emergency District Court Judge in January 2003 and 
January 2004 respectively. 
 
 
2. 
Shortly before 11:00 p.m. on 16 December 
2015, the Durham Police Department received a call from 
a concerned driver reporting a suspected drunk driver.  The 
caller provided the license plate number and indicated that 
the vehicle was driving northbound on Hillandale Road in 
Durham, North Carolina.  The caller also reported that this 
vehicle had nearly hit four (4) other vehicles.   
 
 
3.  
After checking the license plate number 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-4- 
provided by the caller, Durham Police Officer J. A. Alcala 
determined that the vehicle was registered to Respondent, 
whose address was listed as near where the vehicle had 
been observed.  In response, Officer Alcala drove to the 
registered address for the vehicle.  Upon arriving at the 
apartment complex where the vehicle was registered, 
Officer Alcala observed a vehicle with the license plate 
number that matched the number reported to the police. 
   
 
4. 
As Officer Alcala approached the vehicle, he 
noticed that the engine was still running and noted the 
only occupant, later identified as Respondent, was a male 
slumped over in his seat and who appeared to be sleeping 
at the wheel.  The officer also noticed that the vehicle was 
still in drive with Respondent’s foot on the brake.  After 
knocking on the window and waking him, Respondent 
opened the vehicle’s window, at which time Officer Alcala 
detected a strong odor of alcohol emanating from 
Respondent.  Because of Respondent’s level of impairment, 
another officer who arrived at the scene had to put the car 
in park as Respondent was unable to do so himself.   
 
 
5. 
When Respondent finally exited his vehicle, 
he was unable to stand on his own without leaning against 
the vehicle, his speech was slurred, and he was unable to 
comprehend many of the officer’s questions or follow basic 
instructions necessary for the officer to perform several 
field sobriety tests.   
 
 
6. 
At approximately 11:25 p.m., at the officer’s 
request, Respondent submitted to an initial portable 
breath test, which registered a positive result for the 
presence of alcohol.  When asked to provide the requisite 
second sample, however, Respondent became belligerent, 
used offensive and vulgar expletives towards the officer, 
and refused to submit to a second test.  Officer Alcala called 
Durham County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) to the 
scene to evaluate Respondent for a possible medical 
emergency.  While waiting for Durham County EMS to 
arrive, Respondent continued to use vulgar language and 
expletives towards the police officers at the scene as they 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-5- 
attempted to help him remain steady. 
 
 
7. 
While at the scene, Officer Alcala examined 
Respondent’s vehicle and noticed fresh damage and paint 
transfer on the right corner of the front bumper.  The officer 
also observed the rear left tire rim was cracked and the 
front right tire had grey marks consistent with being 
scraped on a curb.  While the officer was inspecting the 
vehicle, Respondent again directed expletives and rude 
statements towards the officer.  Respondent’s use of vulgar 
language and expletives towards law enforcement officers 
at the scene continued as they asked him routine questions 
and attempted to help him contact a family member.   
 
 
8. 
When EMS arrived, Respondent refused to 
cooperate as they tried to take his vital signs, and he 
directed the same vulgar language and expletives towards 
EMS personnel as he had towards the police officers.  
Respondent was transported by ambulance to the local 
hospital after concerns were raised about his health and 
level of impairment.  Respondent’s offensive language 
continued throughout the ride to the local hospital. 
 
 
9. 
The ambulance carrying Respondent arrived 
at the hospital at approximately 12:20 a.m. on 17 
December 2015.  After his admission, Respondent 
continued to use vulgar language and expletives towards 
police officers who were present.  In addition, Respondent 
refused to submit to a blood draw to determine his level of 
impairment, forcing Officer Alcala to secure a search 
warrant to obtain a sample of Respondent’s blood.  During 
the interim period, Respondent again continued to direct 
expletives towards other officers and workers trying to 
assist him.   
 
 
10. 
Officer Alcala returned to the hospital with a 
search 
warrant 
for 
Respondent’s 
blood, 
and 
at 
approximately 2:20 a.m., a sample of Respondent’s blood 
was taken by a nurse and submitted to the N.C. State 
Crime Laboratory for analysis.  After the blood draw, 
Respondent was issued a citation for driving while 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-6- 
impaired and released into the care of his family.   
 
 
11. 
A true and correct copy of the Durham County 
Police Report detailing this incident and Respondent’s 
arrest is attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit 1.   
 
 
12. 
The matter of State v. David Q. LaBarre, 
Durham County file number 15CR3988, was heard on 5 
February 2016.  On that date, Respondent appeared with 
counsel, and entered a plea of guilty to driving while 
impaired.  Respondent was placed on twelve (12) months of 
unsupervised probation, ordered to obtain a substance 
abuse assessment and complete any recommended 
education or treatment, pay a $100.00 fine, court costs and 
community service fee, to complete twenty-four (24) hours 
of community service, and comply with other conditions of 
probation. 
 
 
13. 
Respondent has paid all court ordered 
financial 
obligations, 
completed 
the 
court 
ordered 
substance 
abuse 
assessment 
and 
recommended 
education/treatment, and has completed the court ordered 
community service. 
 
(Citations omitted.)  Based upon these findings of fact, the Commission concluded as 
a matter of law that: 
 
A. Driving While Impaired 
 
 
1. 
Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct sets 
forth the broad principle that “[a] judge should uphold the 
integrity and independence of the judiciary.”  To do so, 
Canon 1 requires that a “judge should participate in 
establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should 
personally observe, appropriate standards of conduct to 
ensure that the integrity and independence of the judiciary 
shall be preserved.” 
 
 
2. 
Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct 
generally 
mandates 
that 
“[a] 
judge 
should 
avoid 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-7- 
impropriety in all the judge’s activities.”  Canon 2A 
specifies that “[a] judge should respect and comply with the 
law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a 
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity 
and impartiality of the judiciary.”   
 
 
3. 
The clear, cogent and convincing evidence 
supporting the Commission’s findings of fact show[s] that 
Respondent violated the criminal laws of the State of North 
Carolina by driving while impaired, thereby putting the 
lives of others and himself at risk. 
 
 
4. 
Respondent agrees that by driving while 
impaired in violation of the criminal laws of the State of 
North Carolina, he acted in violation of Canon 1 of the 
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and Canon 2A of 
the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, and engaged 
in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that 
brings the judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C. 
Gen. Stat. § 7A-376.   
 
 
5. 
Based upon the agreement of Respondent and 
the clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting the 
Commission’s findings of fact that Respondent violated the 
laws of the State of North Carolina by driving while 
impaired, the Commission concludes that Respondent:  (1) 
failed to personally observe standards of conduct to ensure 
the integrity and independence of the judiciary is 
preserved, in violation of Canon 1 of the North Carolina 
Code of Judicial Conduct; and (2) failed to respect and 
comply with the law and to conduct himself in a manner 
that promotes public confidence in the integrity and 
impartiality of the judiciary, in violation of Canon 2A of the 
North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. 
 
 
6. 
The Commission further concludes that the 
facts and circumstances aggravate this misconduct to a 
level warranting more than a private letter of caution.  
Accordingly, Respondent’s violations of Canon 1 and Canon 
2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct also amount to conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-8- 
judicial office into disrepute, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 
§ 7A-376(b).   
 
B.  Belligerent, Offensive and Denigrating  
      Behavior Towards Law Enforcement and  
      Emergency Personnel 
 
 
7. 
The clear, cogent and convincing evidence 
supporting the Commission’s findings of fact show[s] that 
Respondent 
engaged 
in 
belligerent, 
offensive 
and 
denigrating behavior towards local law enforcement and 
emergency personnel as they executed their official duties 
and attempted to assist Respondent during the incident 
underlying these proceedings.   
 
 
8. 
Respondent agrees that by his belligerent, 
offensive, 
and 
denigrating 
behavior 
towards 
law 
enforcement and emergency personnel, he acted in 
violation of Canon 1 and Canon 2A of the North Carolina 
Code of Judicial Conduct, and engaged in conduct 
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the 
judicial office into disrepute in violation of N.C.G.S. §[ ]7A-
376. 
 
 
9. 
Based upon the agreement of Respondent and 
the clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting the 
Commission’s findings of fact, the Commission concludes 
that Respondent:  (1) failed to personally observe standards 
of conduct to ensure the integrity and independence of the 
judiciary is preserved, in violation of Canon 1 of the North 
Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct and (2) failed to conduct 
himself at all times in a manner that promotes public 
confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, 
in violation of Canon 2A of the North Carolina Code of 
Judicial Conduct.   
 
 
10. 
The Commission further concludes that the 
facts and circumstances aggravate this misconduct to a 
level warranting more than a private letter of caution.  
Accordingly, Respondent’s violations of Canon 1 and Canon 
2A of the Code of Judicial Conduct also amount to conduct 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-9- 
prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the 
judicial office into disrepute, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. 
§ 7A-376(b).   
 
(Citations omitted.)  Based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, the 
Commission recommended that this Court censure Respondent for “driving while 
impaired in violation of the laws of the State of North Carolina” and “engaging in 
belligerent, offensive and denigrating behavior towards law enforcement and 
emergency personnel of the State of North Carolina.”  The Commission based this 
recommendation on the Commission’s earlier findings and conclusions and the 
following additional dispositional determinations: 
 
1. 
Respondent 
agreed 
to 
enter 
into 
the 
Stipulation to bring closure to this matter and because of 
his concern for protecting the integrity of the court system.  
Respondent understands the negative impact his actions 
have had on the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.  
Even after an esteemed judicial career spanning thirty-
seven (37) years, Respondent acknowledges his behavior 
during this single incident has jeopardized the public’s 
confidence in his ability to continue to serve fairly and 
impartially. 
 
 
2. 
Respondent has voluntarily resigned his 
commission as an Emergency Judge, and agrees not to seek 
another commission in the future, in lieu of facing a more 
severe disciplinary recommendation. 
 
 
3. 
Respondent has an excellent reputation in his 
community.  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 incident and fully and openly 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-10- 
admitting error and remorse. 
 
 
4. 
Respondent’s 
record 
of 
service 
to 
the 
judiciary, the profession and the community at large is 
otherwise exemplary.  Respondent has been active in 
community and civic affairs, including service as chairman 
of the Deacons and chairman of the Trustees at Greystone 
Baptist Church. 
 
 
5. 
Respondent 
agrees 
to 
accept 
a 
recommendation of censure from the Commission and 
acknowledges that the conduct set out in the stipulation 
establishes by clear and convincing evidence that his 
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 North Carolina General Statute § 7A-376(b). 
 
 
6. 
Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-377(a5), 
which requires that at least five members of the 
Commission concur in a recommendation of public 
discipline to the Supreme Court, all seven Commission 
members present at the hearing of this matter concur in 
this recommendation to censure Respondent.   
 
(Citations omitted.)   
When reviewing a recommendation from the Commission in a judicial 
discipline proceeding, “the Supreme Court ‘acts as a court of original jurisdiction, 
rather than in its typical capacity as an appellate court.’ ”  In re Mack, ___ N.C. ___,  
___, 794 S.E.2d 266, 273 (2016) (order) (quoting In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. 418, 428, 
722 S.E.2d 496, 503 (2012) (order)).  In conducting an independent evaluation of the 
evidence, “[w]e 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.’ ”  
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-11- 
Id. at ___, 794 S.E.2d at 273 (quoting In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. at 428, 722 S.E.2d at 
503 (alterations in original)).  “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 
___, 794 S.E.2d at 274 (quoting In re Hartsfield, 365 N.C. at 429, 722 S.E.2d at 503). 
After careful review, this Court concludes that the Commission’s findings of 
fact, including the dispositional determinations set out above, 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.  As a result, we accept 
the Commission’s findings and conclusions 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 censured.   
Therefore, pursuant to N.C.G.S. §§ 7A-376(b) and -377(a5), it is ordered that 
Respondent David Q. LaBarre be CENSURED for violations of Canons 1 and 2A 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(b).   
By order of the Court in Conference, this the 3rd day of May, 2017.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/Michael R. Morgan 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Court 
IN RE J.L. 
 
Order of the Court 
 
 
-12- 
WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this 
the 5th day of May, 2017.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clerk of the Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/J. Bryan Boyd 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Clerk