Case Name: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Scott D. STOCKERT, Defendant and Appellant
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 2004-07-22
Citations: 684 N.W.2d 605
Docket Number: No. 20030105
Parties: STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Scott D. STOCKERT, Defendant and Appellant.
Judges: [¶ 42] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., WILLIAM A. NEUMANN and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 684
Pages: 605–619

Head Matter:
2004 ND 146
STATE of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Scott D. STOCKERT, Defendant and Appellant.
No. 20030105.
Supreme Court of North Dakota.
July 22, 2004.
James A. Hope, Assistant State’s Attorney, Dickinson, N.D., for plaintiff and ap-pellee.
Scott D. Stockert, pro se, Dickinson, N.D., defendant and appellant.

Opinion:
SANDSTROM, Justice.
[¶ 1] Scott Stockert appeals from a Southwest Judicial District Court criminal judgment finding him guilty of disobedience of a judicial order, a class A misdemeanor, in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1-10-05. Stockert argues he received an unfair trial, he was unlawfully extradited from the State of Colorado, he was wrongfully charged under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-10-05, he was precluded from being charged because of double jeopardy, and he was unlawfully sentenced. He also argues the trial judge should have recused himself from this case. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
I
[¶ 2] Scott Stockert and Wanda Stroud have two minor children. The couple divorced, and custody of the children was awarded to Stroud with Stockert's having visitation rights. On the weekend of September 15, 2000, Stockert had the children for visitation. On September 17, 2000, Stockert failed to return the children to Stroud. He was to have returned the children by 4:00 p.m. that day. On September 25, 2000, Stockert and the children were found in Los Angeles, California.
[¶ 3] On May 3, 2001, a Dickinson police officer signed a complaint charging Stockert with disobedience of a judicial order, a Class A misdemeanor, for violating conditions of visitation found in the divorce court's September 13, 2000, memorandum, the divorce court's January 14, 2000, order amending judgment, and the divorce court's March 24, 1998, judgment.
[¶ 4] On March 11, 2003, Stockert was found guilty by a six-person jury. On April 14, 2003, Stockert was sentenced to one year in prison with all but 154 days suspended for a period of two years if certain conditions and terms were met, including that he comply with treatment recommendations of Dr. Belanger and that he have no contact with Stroud or his children until further court order.
[¶ 5] The district court had jurisdiction under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 8, and N.D.C.C. § 27-05-06. The appeal was timely under N.D.R.App.P. 4(b). This Court has jurisdiction under N.D. Const, art. VI, § 2 and 6, and N.D.C.C. § 29-01-12 and 29-28-06.
II
[¶ 6] Stockert argues the district court denied him his constitutional right to a fair, unbiased, and impartial trial, and to jury selection. He claims he was denied a fair trial because the district court erred in not granting him a jury of more than six people, in not allowing him to challenge and question some of the jurors on their impartiality, in denying his jury instructions, and in denying his right to have subpoenaed witnesses appear in his favor.
A
[¶ 7] On May 23, 2001, Stockert moved for a jury of nine, and on July 9, 2001, he demanded a jury of twelve. On June 15, 2001, the district court informed Stockert that his request for a jury of nine was improper. The court did not explain why his request was improper, but referred him to N.D.R.Crim.P. 23(b). The district court instructed him that if he "wishes to request a jury of more than six qualified jurors, [he] is placed on notice that he must file a timely written demand as set forth in the rule." Rule 23(b) provides that in a class A misdemeanor case for which a jury is impaneled, the jury shall consist of six qualified jurors unless a timely demand is made for a jury of twelve. Rule 23(b) further provides that a demand must be filed with the clerk not later than the time set for making pretrial motions. N.D.R.Crim.P. 23(b). On June 6, 2001, Stockert received a notice of assignment of judge, pretrial conference, and trial. Within this notice the parties were informed that "[wjithin 28 days from the date of this notice, all pretrial motions shall be served and filed with the Court." Stockert signed this notification on June 6, 2001, thus acknowledging he had received a copy of the notice. Twenty-eight days from June 6, 2001, would have been July 4, 2001. Because July 4, 2001, was a holiday, according to N.D.R.Crim.P. 45(a), the pretrial motions were to be served before July 5, 2001. Stockert's certificate of service states that his demand for a jury of twelve was electronically filed on July 6, 2001; however, Stockert's demand was filed with the court on July 9, 2001. His demand for a jury of twelve, whether filed on July 6 or July 9, was untimely.
[¶ 8] Stockert failed to attend the pretrial conference. On July 11, 2002, Stoc-kert was sent a notice of pretrial and trial. Within this notice the parties were again informed that "[w]ithin 28 days from the date of this notice, all pretrial motions shall be served and filed with the Court." The district court administrator certified that a copy of this notice was mailed to or personally served upon Stockert on July 11, 2002. Twenty-eight days from July 11, 2002, would have been August 8, 2002. The pretrial motions, therefore, were to be served by August 8, 2002. On September 11, 2002, Stoekert filed another demand for a jury of twelve. On September 13, 2002, at the pretrial conference, the district court denied his demand for a jury of twelve, finding it untimely. Because Stoc-kert's demands for a jury of twelve were untimely, they were properly denied.
B
[¶ 9] Stoekert also argues he was not able to challenge and question five of the seven jurors on their impartiality. The partial transcript of the jury trial shows that during voir dire, the court explained to the jurors, "we'll begin the voir dire process with the Court asking you some basic questions concerning your qualifications. After I'm done then Mr. Stoekert will have an opportunity to question you, and then Mr. Hope." The transcript shows the district court allowed Stoekert to question the jurors for cause. The district court stated to the jury, "At this point Mr. Stoekert is going to be allowed to question you for cause concerning your qualifications." The district court then told Mr. Stoekert that he could question the jurors for cause. Stoekert questioned one of the jurors. After questioning the juror, Stoc-kert said, "That's all I have. I will not challenge." The court asked Stoekert if he passed for cause. Stoekert replied, "I pass." The court then allowed Mr. Hope to question the jurors for cause. After Stoekert was given the opportunity to question for cause, one juror was excused and another called. The court gave Stoc-kert an opportunity to question the new juror for cause. At no time did Stoekert assert that he was not finished questioning the jurors.
C
[¶ 10] Stoekert also argues the district court erred in denying his jury instructions, including the affirmative defenses of duress and entrapment. He claims there was sufficient evidence to support the instructions. This Court has held, the failure to instruct the jury on an applicable defense when there was evidence to support that defense is obvious error. State v. Hersch, 445 N.W.2d 626, 634 (N.D.1989). "In assessing whether a defendant is entitled to jury instructions on a defense, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant." Id. During the trial, Stoekert conceded there was no evidence to support his entrapment defense. He stated, "I could see the entrapment part being thrown out because I have no proof that any law enforcement officer installed those devices, so I wouldn't have an objection to that being stricken." N.D.C.C. § 12.1-05-10(1) provides, in part:
In a prosecution for an offense which does not constitute a felony, it is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the force, threat, or circumstances are such as would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure.
[¶ 11] Stoekert claims he was compelled to disobey the judicial order because of threats of force. He claims these threats were demonstrated by a death-threat letter and by his having been assaulted by the mother of his children and her brother. The death-threat letter he discusses was not received into evidence. Further, there was no evidence of assaults presented at trial. Having reviewed the record, we conclude there was insufficient evidence for the jury instructions of duress and entrapment.
D
[¶ 12] Stockert claims, because he was indigent, the district court violated his right to have witnesses appear in his favor by means of subpoena. "Whether the district court's refusal to issue a subpoena violates the Sixth Amendment is a question of law, and our standard of review for a claimed violation of a constitutional right is de novo." State v. Treis, 1999 ND 136, ¶ 11, 597 N.W.2d 664. "This right is not absolute, and the defendant must show the testimony would have been both favorable and material to his defense." Id. The district court informed Stockert it "would sign subpoenas for [him] so that [he] could subpoena whoever [he] wishfed]." The court did not refuse to issue subpoenas. The court did, however, tell Stockert he would have to pay for the costs himself unless he convinced the court that the witnesses were relevant and necessary. Stockert was then given the opportunity to convince the court that his witnesses were relevant and necessary.
E
[¶ 13] Stockert also argues he was unlawfully taken from the State of Colorado for a misdemeanor offense. We have been provided with no meaningful record as to what happened in Colorado. If the record on appeal does not allow a meaningful and intelligent review of the alleged error, we decline to review it. Sabot v. Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc., 500 N.W.2d 889, 892 (N.D.1993); see also Flattum-Riemers v: Flattum-Riemers, 2003 ND 70, ¶ 8, 660 N.W.2d 558; Wagner v. Squibb, 2003 ND 18, ¶ 5, 656 N.W.2d 674.
F
[¶ 14] Stockert also argues, because of double jeopardy, the district court could not retry him. He claims he was sanctioned in civil court for the same incident. He argues the State could not lawfully prosecute and convict him of a criminal offense for violating a civil court order. Both civil and criminal sanctions can be imposed for the same act. Furthermore, "a criminal prosecution based on the same conduct that served as the basis for a prior civil contempt proceeding does not offend double jeopardy principles." State v. Mertz, 514 N.W.2d 662, 665 (N.D.1994).
Ill
[¶ 15] Stockert also argues the trial judge should have recused himself from this case because he had a conflict of interest and prior knowledge of the case. He claims there was a conflict because Stroud's uncle, Al Tomayo, was the trial judge's campaign manager.
A
[¶ 16] As a result of a legislatively mandated reduction in the number of district judges, the judgeship occupied by Judge Anderson was eliminated effective December 31, 2000. See Abolition of Judgeship, 1999 ND 226, 603 N.W.2d 57. As a result, Judge Anderson was pitted against another sitting judge.
[¶ 17] The divorce case between Stoc-kert and his wife was heard during the described judicial campaign. Judge Anderson was removed from the divorce case because Stockert filed a timely demand for change of judge, and Judge Allan Schmalenberger was assigned to hear the divorce case. See Stockert v. Stockert, 2001 ND 160, 639 N.W.2d 706. In the November 2000 election, Judge Anderson won the contested judicial race.
[¶ 18] On May 23, 2001, after Judge Ronald Hilden had been assigned to this criminal ease, Stockert filed a timely demand for change of judge, resulting in the removal of Judge Hilden. On June 6, 2001, Judge Anderson was assigned to this case as a result of Stockert's demand for change of judge, and Stockert acknowledged having received notice of Anderson's appointment on that day. On June 15, 2001, Judge Anderson ruled on various pending motions.
[¶ 19] On July 12, 2001, Stockert filed an affidavit of prejudice against Judge Anderson, raising the issue of the propriety of the judge's sitting on the case. In his affidavit, Stockert alleged that Judge Anderson had been removed from the related divorce case because of the alleged conflict of interest, that his ex-wife was a central figure in this prosecution, and that Al Tomayo, his ex-wife's uncle, had been Judge Anderson's campaign manager in the recently completed election. He also alleged that Judge Anderson had prior knowledge of the case because he presided over the contempt of court hearing for the "exact same act" on December 4, 2000. He also claimed the trial judge was a witness in this case because he witnessed in chambers what transpired between two attorneys during the December 4, 2000, hearing. The presiding judge of the district denied the demand on the grounds that it was not timely. Judge Anderson did not recuse.
[¶ 20] Nothing in the record disputes the allegations in Stockert's affidavit: that Stockert had demanded against Anderson in his divorce, that Stockert's ex-wife was a central figure in this prosecution, and that his ex-wife's uncle had recently been Judge Anderson's campaign manager.
B
[¶ 21] For a long time, the Legislature allowed parties to have a change of judge upon filing an affidavit asserting bias or prejudice on the part of the judge. Traynor v. Leclerc, 1997 ND 47, ¶ 9, 11, 561 N.W.2d 644. The present procedure, however, allows a party to get a change of judge simply by filing a written demand for change of judge. Id. at ¶ 11; see also N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21. The written demand must state that it is filed in good faith and not for the purpose of delay. Traynor, at ¶ 11. Further, "a party is entitled to a peremptory challenge of an assigned judge, without alleging bias or prejudice." Id. In a July 16, 2001, order, the presiding judge of the district informed Stockert that the affidavit of prejudice did not comply with the Rules of Procedure or N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21 and that Judge Anderson was "not disqualified in any manner from proceeding."
[¶ 22] More than a year later, on July 22, 2002, Stockert filed a demand for change of judge. The district court denied the demand as untimely. Although Stockert does not argue the district court erred in denying the demand for change of judge, the demand did not comply with section 29-15-21. "The purpose of [N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21] is to allow a party to obtain a change of judge if the party does not believe he could have a fair and impartial trial before the assigned judge." Giese v. Giese, 2002 ND 194, ¶ 5, 653 N.W.2d 663. The right to challenge the assigned judge, however, is not unlimited. Id.
[¶ 23] Section 29-15-21(2), N.D.C.C., provides:
The demand is invalid unless it is filed with the clerk of the court not later than ten days after the occurrence of the earliest of any one. of the following events:
a. The date of the notice of assignment or reassignment of a judge for trial of the case;
b. The date of notice that a trial has been scheduled; or
c. The date of service of any ex parte order in the case signed by the judge against whom the demand is filed.
See also State v. Velasquez, 1999 ND 217, ¶ 3, 602 N.W.2d 693 (demand found untimely when filed more than ten days after assignment of judge); Varriano v. Bang, 541 N.W.2d 707, 712 (N.D.1996). The demand for a change of judge was made over a year after the trial judge had been assigned to the case. Even if Stockert had originally filed the demand for change of judge instead of an affidavit of prejudice, it, too, would have been untimely. In addition, Stockert had already exercised his peremptory challenge. See N.D.C.C. § 29-15-21(7).
C
[¶ 24] To support his argument that the trial judge should have recused himself from this case, Stockert refers to Canon 2 of the North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2; see also Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 512 N.W.2d 718, 720 (N.D.1994). Canon 2(A) requires a judge to act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2(A).
[¶ 25] Stockert also refers to Canon 3 of the North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(E)(1); Reems v. St. Joseph's Hospital, 536 N.W.2d 666, 671 (N.D.1995). A judge is required to disqualify if the judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceedings. N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(E)(1)(A).
1
[¶ 26] Stockert argues the trial judge is a witness in this case because he witnessed in chambers what transpired between two attorneys in a civil contempt hearing held on December 4, 2000. The rule against a judge having prior personal knowledge, however, applies only to knowledge learned from extrajudicial sources. When personal knowledge about a matter has been obtained by a judge within another legal proceeding, disqualification is not called for. Jeffrey M. Shaman, et al., Judicial Conduct and Ethics § 4.11, at 127 (3rd ed.2000); Lee v. State of Indiana, 735 N.E.2d 1169, 1172 (2000).
2
[¶ 27] Stockert also claims the trial judge has a personal interest in seeing him suffer, because of the knowledge he has about the personal conflict. Stockert's claim of actual bias or prejudice appears unsupported by the record. The law presumes a judge is not biased or prejudiced. Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 512 N.W.2d 718, 720 (N.D.1994). Stockert claims the trial judge has denied every single motion he has filed; however, unfavorable rulings are insufficient to demonstrate bias. Evenstad v. Buchholz, 1997 ND 141, ¶ 11, 567 N.W.2d 194. Stoc-kert has failed to establish any instance or evidence of actual bias or prejudice.
3
[¶ 28] The remaining question is whether Judge Anderson should have re-cused — declared his own disqualification— because the uncle of Stockert's ex-wife had been Judge Anderson's campaign manager in the recently completed campaign in which Judge Anderson had been pitted against another sitting district judge for a single judgeship.
[¶ 29] Even if a trial judge has not shown actual bias or prejudice and his personal knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the case came from a legal proceeding, disqualification can be essential to satisfy the appearance of justice. Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth, 500 N.W.2d 862, 877-78 (N.D.1993). The primary concern is the preservation of public respect and confidence in the integrity of the judicial system. Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 512 N.W.2d 718, 720 (N.D.1994). This confidence and respect can be maintained only if justice satisfies the appearance of justice. Id.
[¶ 30] When deciding whether or not to recuse, a judge must determine "whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge's ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired." N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 2(A), Commentary; see also Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 512 N.W.2d 718, 721 (N.D.1994). "[A] judge is disqualified whenever the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(E)(1), Commentary. Recusal is not required, however, in response to "spurious or vague charges of partiality." Farm Credit Bank, at 721.
[¶ 31] As we will discuss, in deciding whether a judge should be disqualified because of a person's involvement in a judicial campaign, the relevant factors include:
1.The significance of the person's campaign involvement.
2. Whether the campaign is underway or how recently it ended.
3. Whether there is an ongoing relationship between the person and the judge.
4. The significance of the person's involvement in the current case, including the closeness or remoteness of the involved individual to the case.
5. Whether the issue was promptly raised.
6. Evidence of judicial bias.
[¶ 32] We must decide whether the trial judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned because Stroud's uncle had been his campaign manager. The trial judge ran for election in November 2000 in a highly contested race between two judges running against each other because one judgeship had been eliminated as part of a court consolidation. Stroud is Stoc-kert's ex-wife. On August 28, 2000, the district court heard Stroud and Stockert's divorce case. The civil case docket reflects that the case was reassigned because of a demand for change of judge. Although Stockert claims the trial judge was disqualified because of this purported conflict of interest, we do not know whether the reasons enumerated in Stockert's affidavit of prejudice were enumerated in that demand. Section 29-15-21, N.D.C.C., does not require reasons for a demand for change of judge.
[¶ 33] The Commentary for North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 5(C) states that "campaign contributions of which a judge has knowledge, made by lawyers or others who appear before the judge, may be relevant to disqualification under Section 3E." N.D.Code Jud. Conduct Canon 5(C), Commentary. Campaign contributions include services on a campaign committee and are not limited to financial contributions. See Na thanson v. Korvick, 577 So.2d 943, 944 (Fla.1991).
[¶ 34] In Reems v. St Joseph's Hospital, 536 N.W.2d 666 (N.D.1995), this Court affirmed the trial court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(vi), N.D.R.Civ.P., motion for relief from the operation of the judgment when the trial judge was aware that the lead attorney for the prevailing party in the proceeding before him was to be his campaign finance co-chair when active campaigning was to begin after trial. We said in Reems:
Canon 3(E) requires disqualification of a judge from "a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned." We do not decide whether in this particular case the trial judge's relationship to the attorney of a party before him or to a partner of a party before him gives reasonable cause to question his impartiality.
Rule 21 of the North Dakota Rules of Judicial Conduct Commission governs the types of action which that commission may take in order to remedy a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. That rule states that "[i]f the Commission finds good cause, it shall recommend to the Supreme Court the censure, removal, retirement, suspension, or other disciplinary action against the judge." Understandably the Code of Judicial Conduct does not specify reversal as a remedy in a case in which a canon was violated.
The Reemses rely on Sargent County Bank v. Wentworth, 500 N.W.2d 862 (N.D.1993), to argue that the mere appearance of bias by the trial court requires reversal.
This case is distinguishable from Wentworth in that questions of fact and the credibility of evidence were decided by a jury. The trial judge made several decisions involving the evidence which was presented to the jury, but these decisions and other matters of law are a part of the record. Thus we are able to review the record for instances of actual bias.
Contrary to the Reemses' allegations, the record shows that the trial judge conducted a fair trial in which all of the parties were able to fully present their evidence and arguments to the jury. The trial court's denial of the rule 60(b)(vi), N.D.R.Civ.P., motion was not an abuse of discretion.
536 N.W.2d at 671 (emphasis added). As in Reems, this case involved a jury as fact finder; unlike Reems, the issue was raised before trial.
[¶ 35] Other states have addressed whether there is an appearance of partiality when a relative of someone with a possible interest in the outcome of a case has contributed to a judge's campaign. In Cook v. State, 35 Md.App. 430, 371 A.2d 433, 439 (1977), the court found no error in the denial of motion for disqualification of a trial judge when the victim's wife, in a criminal case, had managed the judge's campaign for two weeks. In Cook, the judge did not know the victim's wife prior to the campaign and had not seen her since the election. Id. The situation in Cook is similar to the situation in this case, because a relative of someone with a possible interest in the case worked on the judge's campaign. In Home Placement Service, Inc. v. Providence Journal Company, 739 F.2d 671, 675 (1st Cir.1984), the court found no appearance of impartiality when the judge had formerly been the campaign manager for a senator who was a cousin of the director and shareholder of the defendant journal. This case was brought after the election, the judge had never met the director and shareholder, and the judge had no knowledge of the director's responsibilities and ownership interest in the journal. Id. The court found no grounds for recusal. Id. It found the link between the senator and his cousin, which was unknown to the judge, "would not raise even an eyebrow of the reasonable person objectively assessing the Judge's impartiality." Id.
[¶ 36] Even in situations in which an attorney or a party to a case has contributed to the judge's campaign, some courts have found no appearance of impartiality. In Gluth Brothers Construction, Inc. v. Union National Bank, 192 Ill.App.3d 649, 139 Ill.Dec. 650, 548 N.E.2d 1364, 1368 (1989), no appearance of partiality was found when the plaintiffs attorney had previously worked as the judge's campaign manager and the judge failed to disclose that fact. There was no evidence to support an allegation that the attorney had a present, ongoing relationship with the judge, either as his campaign manager or in any other capacity, and the election had taken place six years prior to the case. Id. Case law has also suggested a member of a campaign committee is not perpetually barred from appearing before a trial judge. Barber v. MacKenzie, 562 So.2d 755, 758 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1990). Disqualification may be warranted, however, when the judge's reelection campaign is currently underway. Caleffe v. Vitale, 488 So.2d 627, 629 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986).
[¶ 37] In Kirby v. Chapman, 917 S.W.2d 902, 909 (Tex.App.1996), the appellate court "rejeet[ed] the assertion that the fact that [a state Senator] supported [the trial judge's] nomination and appointment to the bench would cast doubt in the mind of a reasonable person about the judge's ability to be fair and impartial, even in a case involving relatives of the Senator."
[¶ 38] Although our recent case of Graves v. State Board of Law Examiners, 2004 ND 64, 677 N.W.2d 215, involved the State Board of Law Examiners rather than a judge, it is useful to consider it here. In Graves, this Court concluded that a potential conflict of interest existed because the husband of the chairperson of the Board had had acrimonious business dealings with Graves's stepfather. Graves's character was being investigated by the Board. Graves, at ¶ 2. In Graves, unlike this case and unlike Reems, questions of fact and the credibility of evidence were not decided by a jury. In Graves, the conflict of interest was related to the factual and legal issues before the Board, the Board chairperson made statements suggesting personal knowledge related to the investigation's subject matter, and the Board chairperson failed to disclose the potential conflict of interest. Graves, at ¶ 15-16. The types of relationships in Graves, in which the chairperson of the Board and her husband and the applicant and her stepfather were involved, differ from those in this case involving a judge and his former campaign manager and an uncle and his niece. The alleged conflict here is substantially more removed than that in Graves. A reasonable person would be more likely to perceive that the relationship of the parties in Graves could impair the decision-maker's ability to carry out responsibilities with integrity and impartiality.
[¶ 39] In this case, the alleged conflict of interest is wholly unrelated to the factual and legal issues before the judge. We know only that the record reflects Stroud's uncle, A1 Tomayo, was the judge's campaign manager. We do not know whether the judge was aware of any connection between Tomayo and Stroud before Stoc-kert brought it to the district court's attention, nor do we know anything about Stroud's relationship with Tomayo or whether the judge and Tomayo have an ongoing relationship.
[¶ 40] This case is not one in which a party or a party's attorney was involved in the judge's campaign. This is not a case in which the campaign was currently underway, although the campaign had occurred in the relatively recent past. We conclude that under the circumstances of this case, as reflected in the information before us, the judge's impartiality could not be reasonably questioned.
IV
[¶ 41] We affirm Stockert's conviction.
[¶ 42] GERALD W. VANDE WALLE, C.J., WILLIAM A. NEUMANN and CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, JJ., concur.