Title: Matter of Edens
Citation: 226 S.E.2d 5, 290 N.C. 299
Docket Number: 82
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: June 17, 1976

226 S.E.2d 5 (1976) 290 N.C. 299 In the Matter of Judge Joseph P. EDENS. No. 82. Supreme Court of North Carolina. June 17, 1976. *6 Simpson, Baker &amp; Aycock by Gene Baker, Morganton, for Joseph P. Edens. Atty.Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten, by Deputy Atty. Gen. Millard R. Rich, Jr.; Sp. Counsel James E. Scarbrough, Raleigh, for the Judicial Standards Commission. EXUM, Justice. This matter is before the Court upon the Recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission (Commission) filed with us on February 3, 1976, that Judge Joseph P. Edens, a judge of the General Court of Justice, District Court Division, Twenty-Fifth Judicial District (Respondent), be censured for "wilful misconduct in office" and "conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute," as these phrases are used in Article IV, Section 17(2) of the North Carolina Constitution and General Statute 7A-376 (1974 Cum.Supp.). Having considered the record in the matter consisting of the verified complaint and answer filed with, the evidence heard by, the findings of fact, conclusions, and Recommendation made by the Commission, together with the briefs and arguments before us for Respondent *7 and Commission, we note the following procedure before and findings of the Commission and we make the following conclusions of law and order of censure: 1. This proceeding was instituted before the Commission in July, 1975, by the filing of a verified complaint which alleged that Respondent had engaged in wilful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in that on February 20, 1975, in Criminal Case No. 74-CR-18186 pending in Catawba County wherein a defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor Respondent accepted a plea of guilty and entered judgment under the following circumstances: 2. Respondent filed a verified answer which, in part, alleged as follows: 3. Upon due notice, Respondent was accorded a full adversary hearing before the Commission on October 9, 1975, at which time he was represented by counsel. The Commission considered pertinent portions of the pleadings, the sworn testimony of Mrs. Anne Lemons, Deputy Clerk, Catawba County, a statement made by Respondent on April 22, 1975, to one Dallas A. Cameron, Jr., an investigator for the Commission, which statement was tendered at the hearing by Respondent, together with certain exhibits which included the affidavit and warrant and a judgment signed by Respondent on a Uniform Traffic Citation in Criminal Case No. 74-CR-18186 in Catawba County. 4. Upon this evidence the Commission found certain facts as follows: 1. The Commission's findings are supported by the evidence. We affirm these findings. 2. "This proceeding is neither criminal nor civil in nature. It is an inquiry into the conduct of a judicial officer, the purpose of which is not primarily to punish any individual but to maintain due and proper administration of justice in our State's courts, public confidence in its judicial system, and the honor and integrity of its judges." In re Crutchfield, 289 N.C. 597, 602, 223 S.E.2d 822, 825 (1975). 3. In his petition for a hearing before this Court filed pursuant to Rule 2 of the Rules For Supreme Court Review of Recommendations of The Judicial Standards Commission, 289 N.C., Vol. 9, No. 6, *9 Supreme Court Advance Sheets (hereinafter Rules For Supreme Court Review), Respondent contends first, that there was no legislative authority to create the Commission since the constitutional amendments authorizing its creation had not become effective when the enabling legislation was enacted and second, that the proceedings before the Commission are violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Respondent, however, makes no argument on these points in his brief and cites no authority in support of them. He has, consequently, abandoned these contentions making it unnecessary for this Court to address itself to them. See Rule 2(d) of the Rules For Supreme Court Review and Rule 28, Rules of Appellate Procedure, 287 N.C. 671, 741 (1975). 4. Wilful misconduct in office is improper and wrong conduct of a judge acting in his official capacity done intentionally, knowingly and, generally, in bad faith. It is more than a mere error of judgment or an act of negligence. While the term would encompass conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, or corruption, these elements need not necessarily be present. See generally, Spruance v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 13 Cal. 3d 778, 119 Cal. Rptr. 841, 532 P.2d 1209 (1975); Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, 10 Cal. 3d 270, 110 Cal. Rptr. 201, 515 P.2d 1 (1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 932, 94 S. Ct. 2643, 41 L. Ed. 2d 235; In re Haggerty, 257 La. 1, 241 So. 2d 469 (1970). This phrase is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Keiser v. Bell, 332 F. Supp. 608 (E.D. Pa.1971). 5. Conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute has been defined as "conduct which a judge undertakes in good faith but which nevertheless would appear to an objective observer to be not only unjudicial conduct but conduct prejudicial to public esteem for the judicial office." Geiler v. Commission on Judicial Qualifications, supra at 284, 110 Cal. Rptr. at 209, 515 P.2d at 9 (1973). Whether the conduct of a judge may be so characterized "depends not so much upon the judge's motives but more on the conduct itself, the results thereof, and the impact such conduct might reasonably have upon knowledgeable observers." In re Crutchfield, supra, 289 N.C. at 603, 223 S.E.2d at 826. This phrase is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. See Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 94 S. Ct. 2547, 41 L. Ed. 2d 439 (1974). 6. In applying the criteria above described, consideration should be given to the traditions, heritage, and generally recognized practices of the courts and the legal profession, the common and statutory law, codes of judicial conduct, and traditional notions of judicial ethics. While not necessarily determinative these may be usefully consulted to give meaning to the constitutional and statutory prohibitions. See In re Crutchfield, supra, and cases cited therein. 7. It is not clear from the Commission's findings whether Respondent authorized the entry of a "Prayer for Judgment continued for Six Months on payment of Cost." It is clear that he at least authorized the entry of a "Prayer for Judgment Continued for six months." His acceptance of a guilty plea and his authorization of this latter entry constituted a disposition, even if not a final one, of the case. It is more than a mere continuance of the matter; although a continuance would itself be a disposition, albeit not final, of the case. 8. A criminal prosecution is an adversary proceeding in which the district attorney, as an advocate of the state's interest, is entitled to be present and be heard. Respondent's disposition of Criminal Case No. 74-CR-18186, without notice to the district attorney who was prosecuting the docket when the matter was not on the printed calendar for disposition, improperly excluded the district attorney from participating in the disposition. 9. The trial and disposition of criminal cases is the public's business and ought to be conducted in public in open court. See N.C.Const., Art. I, § 18. "The public, and especially the parties, are entitled *10 to see and hear what goes on in the courts." Raper v. Berrier, 246 N.C. 193, 195, 97 S.E.2d 782, 784 (1957). Respondent's disposition of Criminal Case No. 74-CR-18186 outside the courtroom when court was not in session improperly removed the proceeding from the public domain where it belonged and made it instead a private matter between him and counsel for the defendant. 10. Canon 3(A)(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct, 283 N.C. 771, 772, provides that "[a] judge should accord to every person who is legally interested in a proceeding, or his lawyer, full right to be heard according to law, and, except as authorized by law, neither initiate nor consider ex parte or other communications concerning a pending or impending proceeding." Respondent's disposition of Criminal Case No. 74-CR-18186 violated this Canon. 11. We conclude that Respondent's disposition of Criminal Case No. 74-CR-18186 constituted wilful misconduct in office and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the judicial office into disrepute in that it (1) improperly precluded the district attorney from participating in the disposition; (2) improperly removed the proceeding from the public domain; and (3) violated Canon 3(A)(4) of the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct. For this conduct Respondent ought to be censured in accordance with the Recommendation of the Judicial Standards Commission. Now, therefore, it is ORDERED that Judge Joseph P. Edens be and he is hereby censured by this Court. Done by the Court in Conference this 17th day of June, 1976. LAKE, J., did not participate in the decision of this matter.