Opinion ID: 2028216
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PEOPLE v BELLEW

Text: A retrial of defendant Bellew on a felony charge of receiving and concealing stolen property in excess of $100 [6] commenced on June 9, 1992. [7] After two witnesses had testified, the trial was continued until June 23, 1992. During the interim, the prosecutor filed a motion to disqualify Judge Curtis, alleging that the defense attorney was in some way associated in the practice of law with Judge Curtis' spouse. The motion focused on Judge Curtis' ethical obligation to disclose this alleged relationship, and her failure to do so. Defense counsel answered by challenging the grounds for disqualification and requesting Judge Curtis to deny the motion or hold an evidentiary hearing. Counsel argued that [w]hether that relationship would provide a basis under these circumstances for this Court to recuse itself on the vague generalization is unsubstantiated, and that in light of the substantial constitutional interests involved, it was an outrage for the prosecution to file this motion. Stating that she had not engaged in any misconduct, Judge Curtis nonetheless recused herself to insure that both sides felt their rights are protected and that impartiality is assured.... She declined to address defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing, choosing instead to refer the matter to Chief Judge Dalton Roberson. The chief judge declared a mistrial, and then granted defendant's motion to dismiss, holding that retrial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. A unanimous panel of the Court of Appeals upheld the chief judge's decision, concluding that, while manifest necessity is an elusive concept, with considerable deference being accorded a trial court's application of this concept, such deference could not operate to cloak the mere appearance of impropriety under the umbrella of manifest necessity. [8] Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued January 7, 1994 (Docket No. 157434). We granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal, and ordered that this case be argued and submitted with People v Hicks. [9]