Opinion ID: 2023562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the Judge Was Required to Recuse Himself.

Text: Defendant contends that the judge should have recused himself after receiving phone calls from concerned citizens regarding this case. During the sentencing hearing the judge stated: Mr. Sinclair, since this trial and after the publicity that was received during the trial and afterwards, I've received approximately six calls from citizens of this state, out of Des Moines and also in Polk County, asking that I give you the maximum sentence of one year in jail and a thousand dollar fine. To me that [] would be an easy sentence for me to give to you and I would probably be a hero of this state in respect to those people that are so against drunk driving that they would now say that I was doing what I was supposed to do. However, the Court has to look at all the facts and circumstances in this case, and I know that if I did the maximum for everything, that that would probably really hurt you in your livelihood as an attorney and as a person, and that the bar association would probably suspend your license and give you a year suspension, and whether they would run it concurrent with the year in jail or not I don't know. .... [N]o matter how much the public is screaming and how much public clamor there is, I still have an oath and an obligation under this law to administer justice to you. This court has held that actual prejudice must be shown before a recusal is necessary. McKinley v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 542 N.W.2d 822, 827 (Iowa 1996). The test is whether a reasonable person would question the judge's impartiality. Id.; State v. Smith, 282 N.W.2d 138, 142 (Iowa 1979). The defendant did not meet his burden of showing actual prejudice. The judge acknowledged the public outcry over this case to make it clear that he was not influenced by popular opinion. There were no grounds for recusal. We affirm defendant's conviction but vacate the sentence imposed and remand for resentencing consistent with the determinations made in this opinion. AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.