Opinion ID: 2424396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: When facing a Motion for Recusal, a trial judge must create a record subjectively addressing actual bias and objectively addressing the appearance of bias.

Text: When addressing a Motion for Recusal on grounds of personal bias or prejudice, a judge must engage in a two-part analysis. [21] First, the judge must subjectively determine that she can proceed to hear the case free of bias or prejudice. [22] Second, once the judge has subjectively determined that she has no bias, she must then objectively determine whether, actual bias aside, there is an appearance of bias sufficient to cause doubt about her impartiality. [23] If an objective observer viewing the circumstances would conclude that a fair or impartial hearing is unlikely, recusal is appropriate. [24] The judge must make both determinations on the record. [25] On appeal, we review the judge's subjective analysis for abuse of discretion, [26] but we review the merits of the objective analysis de novo. [27] We note that Fritzinger's Motion for Recusal focused on the fact that the State's chief investigating officer in this case, Detective Conaway, was also the chief investigating officer in the judge's former sister-in-law's rape case. Given that, the trial judge clearly and appropriately stated on the record her subjective belief that she could hear the case free of bias. [28] Considering the extensive explanation on the record, and the facts that the judge asserted that she did not remember ever meeting Conaway and that her relationship with her former sister-in-law was quite distant, the trial judge did not abuse her discretion by subjectively determining that she could hear this case without bias that would prejudice Fritzinger. Our review of the objective second prong of the recusal test, however, is more complicated. On appeal, Fritzinger makes two arguments. First, he argues that Conaway's involvement objectively created an appearance of bias sufficient to require recusal. Second, he contends that no one disclosed to his counsel that Marvin Dallas, one of the men Mary claims sexually abused her before Fritzinger, was also the man a jury convicted of raping the judge's former sister-in-law. According to Fritzinger, this additional material fact, found in the CAC interview of record, created an improper objective appearance of unfairness or bias.