Opinion ID: 1837237
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether Personal Bias Unreasonably Factored into the Chancellor's Decision

Text: ¶ 15. Objectors to the annexation claim the chancellor erred by allowing personal bias to inappropriately influence his decision about the annexation. Additionally, they argue the chancellor inserted his personal opinion as a sort of thirteenth factor to the twelve indicia of reasonableness. The objectors focus on statements made by the chancellor when he verbally ruled the annexation proposal by the City was being approved by the court. The chancellor's ruling, the objectors argue, was based on a preference that the area be annexed by Clinton before the city of Jackson attempted to annex it: And I'll say this much, too. Having been born and raised in Jackson, I know Jackson, and if the City of Clinton didn't get this annexed property, you could count next month on Jackson coming after you; I can promise you that. They were already after you, and everybody out here is aware of what they're doing in Byram. They're trying to take over Byram. So they're going to be relentless. I think you're much better off being part of the City of Clinton, and I say that from experience. So that's going to be the ruling of the Court, that the plaintiff will prevail. ¶ 16. We presume a judge is qualified and unbiased unless evidence presented produces a reasonable doubt as to the judge's impartiality and ask whether a reasonable person, knowing all of the circumstances, would harbor doubts about the [judge's] impartiality. Turner v. State, 573 So.2d 657, 678 (Miss.1990). While the chancellor did make the statement in his ruling that the City of Clinton had proven its case, his statement that the annexed area would fare better as a part of the City of Clinton and not the City of Jackson is troubling. We do not find that such a comment rises to the level of disqualifying bias, but on remand we direct the chancellor to base his decision on the twelve indicia of reasonableness announced by this Court and ultimately on the totality of the circumstances  not personal opinion. This assignment of error is without merit.