Opinion ID: 1147225
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: did the trial judge err in declining to recuse himself?

Text: For the answer to this issue, we look to the Mississippi Constitution, the statute and the Canons of Judicial Conduct. Article 6, § 165, of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 provides: No judge of any court shall preside on the trial of any cause, where the parties or either of them, shall be connected with him by affinity of consanguinity, or where he may be interested in the same, except by the consent of the judge and of the parties ... There is no constitutional prohibition against this trial judge presiding over the case, since he is neither related to the parties nor has an interest in the case. Miss. Code Ann., Section 9-1-11 provides: The judge of a court shall not preside on the trial of any cause where the parties, or either of them, shall be connected with him by affinity of consanguinity, or where he may be interested in the same, or wherein he may have been of counsel, except by the consent of the judge and of the parties. There is no reason under the statute for the trial judge to recuse himself, since it merely tracks the constitutional provision. Cannon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides (1) A judge should disqualify himself in a proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) he has personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding ... The appellant went to the home of the trial judge one afternoon, while the judge was painting his house. Appellant told the judge that he was leaving the law firm of Holmes and Dukes. The judge regarded that as a social call and remembered nothing about it, since he was busily engaged in his painting. Therefore, he denied the motion for recusal. Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all of his activities. The case at bar is distinguished from the cases of In re Moffett, 556 So.2d 723 (Miss. 1990) and Jenkins v. Forrest County General Hospital, 542 So.2d 1180 (Miss. 1989). In those cases, this Court held that the trial judge should have recused himself because both cases involved medical malpractice suits against Forrest General Hospital and in both cases the judge's brother was a partner in the firm which represented the hospital. Also, the record indicated that the hospital got him (judge) elected to the bench in the last election. The case at bar is distinguished from the above cases. It was shown that the judge had known appellant for approximately nine years but there was no indication of any bias or prejudice for or against the appellant. The entire record of this case does not indicate any such bias or prejudice and reflects that the appellant received a fair trial. We note that in many areas, particularly rural areas, where judges have known practically all the people for many years, if such were a disqualification, the judge could never preside on most cases. The issue is rejected.