Opinion ID: 2613184
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Motion to Disqualify the District Court Judge

Text: Before trial, Libby made an oral motion to disqualify Judge Sullivan, based on the following comments made by him at a previous bail hearing: [t]here was a capital offense. If I were to consider the confession I would find that beyond a reasonable doubt that he had done this. Libby alleged that Judge Sullivan's comments demonstrated bias toward the merits of his case. In denying the motion, the judge stated that his statement was taken out of context and that he was not biased. Libby now argues that Judge Sullivan erred in refusing to follow the statutory provisions set forth in NRS 1.235. NRS 1.230(1) provides that [a] judge shall not act as such in an action or proceeding when he entertains actual bias or prejudice for or against one of the parties to the action. Any party seeking to disqualify a judge for actual or implied bias or prejudice must file an affidavit specifying the facts upon which the disqualification is sought. NRS 1.235(1). The defense attorneys failed to file a written affidavit and thus did not comply with the statutory requirements. However, Judge Sullivan granted defense counsel leave to proceed on sworn testimony rather than by affidavit. Although the district court erred in failing to follow the procedure mandated by the statute and have another judge determine whether Judge Sullivan was biased, we conclude that the error was harmless. The allegedly biased comment was not a basis for the disqualification of a district judge, and there is no indication of bias during any phase of the trial.