Opinion ID: 1790946
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: whether the circuit judge erred in failing to recuse himself.

Text: ¶ 17. Bishop argues that Circuit Judge Barry Ford, who merely ruled on pre-trial motions and did not preside over the trial, should have recused himself because he represented Bishop on unrelated charges while serving as a public defender. Bishop alleges that during that representation, he and Judge Ford got into an altercation and that this prior relationship caused Judge Ford to be biased against Bishop. ¶ 18. Bishop has presented no evidence that Judge Ford was connected to any of the parties by affinity or consanguinity. See Green v. State, 631 So.2d 167, 177 (Miss.1994) (citing Buchanan v. Buchanan, 587 So.2d 892, 895 (Miss.1991)). Canon 3(C)(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires disqualification of a judge when his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where ... `he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party....' A judge should recuse himself if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would harbor doubts about his impartiality. Green, 631 So.2d at 177 (quoting Jenkins v. State, 570 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Miss.1990)). See also Dowbak v. State, 666 So.2d 1377, 1389 (Miss.1996). Primarily, [a judge] is to judge his own qualifications and fairness, and unless a record reflects an abuse of his powers to the extent of showing probable injustice, the Court here will not reverse a case upon such grounds. Garrett v. State, 187 Miss. 441, 193 So. 452, 455 (1940) (cited with approval in Coleman v. State, 378 So.2d 640, 644 (Miss.1979)). ¶ 19. At the hearing on the motion to recuse, Bishop testified that the prior representation was in 1989 when he was charged with kidnaping, aggravated assault and grand larceny. The charges were ultimately referred to the youth court, and Bishop was sentenced to training school. Judge Ford stipulated to these facts. He then denied the motion for recusal on the basis that he had no recollection of representing Bishop, that the prior representation was remote in time, and that the motion for recusal was made the day before trial. A hearing on pretrial motions was then conducted by Judge Ford. ¶ 20. The next day, Circuit Judge Frank Russell opened court and proceeded with the trial to completion. Though absent from the record, it appears that Judge Ford, after hearing pre-trial motions, decided to request another judge to conduct the trial. ¶ 21. We find no abuse of discretion in Judge Ford's denial of the motion for recusal, particularly under the limited circumstances of his involvement.