Opinion ID: 1924113
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether suspension with pay is an appropriate disciplinary action pending resolution of the criminal charges.

Text: ¶ 11. Temporary suspension with pay is an appropriate measure of discipline where a judge is under a felony criminal indictment. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 177A. The inquiry then becomes whether temporary suspension is appropriate for Judge Hartzog under the facts and circumstances of his particular case. ¶ 12. In our independent inquiry, we consider several factors. First, we consider whether the recommended sanction is within the range for like violations. Insofar as this case involves the imposition of sanctions against a judge for being indicted, but not yet convicted of a crime, this appears to be an issue of first impression. Other states have found an indictment for a felony, by itself, is enough to warrant temporary suspension. See In re Shenberg, 632 So.2d 42 (Fla.1991) (grand jury indictment provided probable cause that judges had engaged in misconduct making them unfit to serve, justifying Supreme Court's suspension of judges without compensation prior to Judicial Qualifications Commission's evidentiary finding of misconduct); In re Kirby, 350 N.W.2d 344 (Minn.1984) (Rule 7(a) of Minnesota's Rules of Board on Judicial Standards provides that the Supreme Court shall immediately suspend with pay and without a hearing any judge charged with a felony); State ex rel. Green v. Tilton, 1 Ohio St.3d 54, 437 N.E.2d 1174 (1982) (Rule III(1)(b) of the Rules for the Government of the Judiciary of Ohio provides that a judge is disqualified from acting as a judge while there is pending an indictment against him charging him with a felony); In re Larsen, 655 A.2d 239 (Pa.Ct.Jud.Disc.1994) (court will decide matters of indictment on a case by case basis and will reject the proposal that suspension with pay be entered as a matter of course when any indictment charging a felony is filed ... totality of the circumstances is more appropriate, with each case being decided on its own facts) But cf. In re Cornelius, 48 N.Y.2d 1014, 425 N.Y.S.2d 552, 401 N.E.2d 910 (1980) (mere filing of federal indictment against family court judge did not warrant imposition of severe sanction of suspension from judicial duties). ¶ 13. Temporary suspension with pay may be an appropriate disciplinary action following a felony indictment in some cases. However, we believe that a broad test, which considers the totality of the circumstances of each case, as used by Pennsylvania, should be used before the imposition of such discipline. With Judge Hartzog's duties as a Justice Court Judge involving criminal and civil actions involving bad checks, it does not appear appropriate for him to continue these duties while under a felony indictment for similar charges. The appearance of impropriety is too great. ¶ 14. A second factor for this Court to consider is the gravity of the offense charged. The case sub judice involves a two count felony indictment. Judge Hartzog has essentially admitted the facts of the indictment. Whether or not the necessary intent is ultimately proven need not be considered by this Court at this time. While the suspension is in the nature of discipline, the purpose of the suspension is to protect the integrity of the court and is not a punitive penalty imposed because Judge Hartzog has been indicted. As the Supreme Court of New Jersey has stated: Removal is not punishment for a crime, nor is suspension, nor is withholding of pay. The purpose of the removal proceedings, and all related aspects of those proceedings, is to regulate the judiciary, to protect the public from dishonest judges, to prevent proven dishonest judges from doing further damage, and above all to assure the public that the judiciary is worthy of its trust. In re Coruzzi, 95 N.J. 557, 472 A.2d 546 (1984). Judge Hartzog's guilt or innocence in his criminal case will eventually be resolved by a full trial on the merits. The Commission will then take whatever action it deems necessary with regard to the pending formal complaint. ¶ 15. Finally, we must examine the various options available to the Commission. Section 177A of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890, as amended, allows the Commission to recommend to this Court the removal from office, suspension, the levy of a fine, public censure or reprimand of any judge of this state. This Court has held that sanction for judicial misconduct should fit the offense. Miss. Com'n on Jud. Performance v. Gunn, 614 So.2d 387, 390 (Miss.1993). In the case sub judice, the Commission has recommended the temporary suspension of Judge Hartzog with pay until the charges and Formal Complaint are resolved. Under the circumstances of this case we believe temporary suspension, with pay, is necessary to protect the sanctity of the courts.