Title: Commonwealth v. King, Carolyn Ann (Concurring Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 6 EAP 2002
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: December 31, 2003

[J-143-2002] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellant v. CAROLYN ANN KING, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 6 EAP 2002 Appeal by Permission from the Order of the Hon. Robert J. Eby, President Judge, dated October 12, 2001 granting Appellee's Motion for Recusal, in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County at No. 1993-10898. SUBMITTED: July 18, 2002 CONCURRING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: December 30, 2003 I join the analysis and rationale of the Dissenting Opinion authored by Justice Castille. Indeed, I respectfully disagree with the way the Majority applies the legal standard at issue to the facts of this case, and I also believe that a recusal for improper reasons constitutes an abuse of judicial discretion. Ultimately, however, I do not think that it is appropriate to require President Judge Robert J. Eby to continue presiding in the instant matter. “Four things belong to a judge: to hear courteously, to answer wisely, to consider soberly and to decide impartially,”1 and, in my opinion, it is the absence of the last element 1 Socrates (470 - 399 B.C.). [J-143-2002] - 2 that compels my decision. It is evident that President Judge Eby recused himself for the sole purpose of expediting the ultimate resolution of this case. Trial Court Opinion, 9/14/2002, p. 14 (“If we were to deny [appellee]’s Motion for Recusal, [Appellee] may well pursue review on this issue and there would be greater delay in bringing [Appellee]’s case to resolution.”) Aside from the fact that, as articulated by Justice Castille, this conclusion is based on a specious concern with appellate delay, I believe that it also exhibited a bias towards Appellee sufficient to warrant a recusal in and of itself. Hence, at this point, it would be unfair for President Judge Eby to decide the issues raised by the Appellee and, while I entirely disagree with the reasoning of the Majority, I feel constrained to agree with the result that it reaches.