[Cite as In re Disqualification of Farmer, 139 Ohio St.3d 1202, 2014-Ohio-2046.] 

IN RE DISQUALIFICATION OF FARMER. 

STATE v. BROWN. 

[Cite as In re Disqualification of Farmer, 139 Ohio St.3d 1202, 

2014-Ohio-2046.] 

Judges—Affidavit of disqualification—R.C. 2701.03—Spousal relationship 

between a judge and a police officer—Disqualification not required when 

spouse not involved in the case before the judge—Disqualification denied.

(No. 14-AP-011—Decided March 18, 2014.) 

ON AFFIDAVIT OF DISQUALIFICATION in Stark County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. 2013CR1718. 

____________________ 

O’CONNOR, C.J. 

{¶ 1} Kenneth W. Frame, counsel for defendant, has filed an affidavit 

with the clerk of this court under R.C. 2701.03 seeking to disqualify Judge Kristin 

G. Farmer from presiding over any further proceedings in case No. 2013CR1718 

in the Court of Common Pleas of Stark County. 

{¶ 2} Frame requests Judge Farmer’s disqualification because the judge 

is married to a sergeant in the Alliance Police Department who “is in a 

supervisory position over the officers who made the arrest in this case and are 

listed as witnesses for the trial.” 

{¶ 3} Judge Farmer has responded in writing to Frame’s affidavit. The 

judge acknowledges that her spouse is a sergeant in the Alliance Police 

Department and explains that she has a practice of recusing herself from cases in 

which he has been involved. However, Judge Farmer denies that her husband 

supervised the arresting officers in the underlying case. Judge Farmer explains 

that her husband is a shift commander for the afternoon shift, and in that role, he 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

has supervisory authority over patrol officers only on the shift he is working. The 

incident involving defendant occurred during the midnight shift on her husband’s 

regularly scheduled day off. Thus, Judge Farmer avers that “he was not in a 

supervisory position over the officers who made the arrest in the case.” In 

addition, the judge explains that unless her husband or one of the arresting 

officers here works overtime on a different shift, her husband is not in a 

supervisory position over the officers involved in this case. To support her 

position, the judge submitted an affidavit from her husband, his payroll report for 

the time in question, and the police reports indicating the names of the Alliance 

police officers involved in defendant’s arrest. Judge Farmer further affirms that 

she can be fair and impartial to defendant. 

{¶ 4} For the reasons explained below, no basis has been established to 

order the disqualification of Judge Farmer. 

{¶ 5} Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A)(2)(d) provides that a judge must disqualify 

himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge knows that the judge’s 

spouse is “[l]ikely to be a material witness in the proceeding.” Judge Farmer 

avers that her husband was not an investigating officer in the underlying case and 

is not listed as a witness. Accordingly, Judge Farmer is not automatically 

disqualified from hearing the matter under Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A)(2)(d). 

{¶ 6} The Code of Judicial Conduct, however, also requires 

disqualification if the “judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” See 

Jud.Cond.R. 2.11(A). Frame alleges that the judge’s husband is in a supervisory 

position over the officers who arrested defendant and are listed as witnesses. But 

Frame has offered only his affidavit to support this claim. In contrast, Judge 

Farmer has submitted documentation establishing that her husband did not 

supervise the officers at the time of defendant’s arrest and that unless someone 

works overtime, the judge’s husband does not have supervisory authority over 

those officers. In affidavit-of-disqualification proceedings, the burden falls on the 
January Term, 2014 

3 

affiant to submit sufficient evidence and argument demonstrating that 

disqualification is warranted. See R.C. 2701.03(B)(1). “Generally, an affiant is 

required to submit evidence beyond the affidavit of disqualification supporting the 

allegations contained therein.” In re Disqualification of Baronzzi, 135 Ohio St.3d 

1212, 2012-Ohio-6341, 985 N.E.2d 494, ¶ 6. On the record here, Frame’s 

unsubstantiated allegation is insufficient to establish that the judge’s husband is in 

a supervisory position over the arresting officers scheduled to testify in this case. 

See, e.g., In re Disqualification of Walker, 36 Ohio St.3d 606, 522 N.E.2d 460 

(1988) (“vague, unsubstantiated allegations of the affidavit are insufficient on 

their face for a finding of bias or prejudice”). 

{¶ 7} The question remains, however, whether the mere fact that the 

judge’s spouse is a sergeant in the Alliance Police Department creates an 

appearance of impropriety disqualifying her from this case. “The proper test for 

determining whether a judge’s participation in a case presents an appearance of 

impropriety is * * * an objective one. A judge should step aside or be removed if 

a reasonable and objective observer would harbor serious doubts about the 

judge’s impartiality.” In re Disqualification of Lewis, 117 Ohio St.3d 1227, 2004-

Ohio-7359, 884 N.E.2d 1082, ¶ 8. Given that the judge’s husband was not 

involved in the investigation or arrest of defendant, given that Frame has not set 

forth any additional information about the substance of the arresting officers’ 

potential testimony or their connection to Judge Farmer, and given Judge 

Farmer’s assurances that she can be fair and impartial to defendant, the spousal 

relationship here is not enough to create a reasonable question about the judge’s 

impartiality. 

{¶ 8} This conclusion is consistent with Board of Commissioners on 

Grievances and Discipline Opinion No. 89-19 (June 16, 1989)—decided under the 

former Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct—which concluded that “nothing in the 

[former code] precludes a judge from sitting in cases involving a police 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

department which employs the judge’s spouse.” Instead, the opinion advised that 

a judge should make a “case-by-case determination” of whether the judge’s 

spousal relationship creates an appearance of impropriety. The reasoning here is 

also in line with well-established Ohio precedent holding that a spousal 

relationship between a judge and a prosecutor who is not involved in the case 

before the judge does not automatically warrant disqualification of the judge. See, 

e.g., In re Disqualification of Carr, 105 Ohio St.3d 1233, 2004-Ohio-7357, 826 

N.E.2d 294, ¶ 17 (“Where a judge is married to a prosecutor whose office is 

representing the state in a case before him or her, disqualification * * * is not 

required, as long as the judge’s spouse has neither entered an appearance in the 

case nor participated in the preparation or presentation of the case”); In re 

Disqualification of Bates, 134 Ohio St.3d 1249, 2012-Ohio-6342, 984 N.E.2d 17, 

¶ 9 (denying affidavit of disqualification when the affiant had not offered any 

evidence that the judge’s spouse, who was also the county prosecutor, had 

participated in the preparation or presentation of the underlying case). 

{¶ 9} For the reasons stated above, the affidavit of disqualification is 

denied. The case may proceed before Judge Farmer. 

_________________________