Opinion ID: 2359432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Alleged Instances of Misconduct

Text: On the evidence before us, we conclude that Judge Benoit's actions in three factual situations, when evaluated by the objective test, constitute judicial misconduct and therefore involve sanctionable violations of Canon 3 A(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Committee alleges that Judge Benoit committed judicial misconduct in his handling of the Tessin case in three respects: imposition of bail pending hearing in a civil case and imprisonment for failure to provide that bail; imposition of bail to assure payment of a civil fine; and imprisonment to satisfy a civil fine under circumstances denying the jailed individual his right to due process of law. On the evidence before us, we find the following facts. The defendant, Mark R. Tessin, appeared before Judge Benoit in District Court (Skowhegan) on June 6, 1983, following his arrest on the charge of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OUI). Prior to Tessin's appearance before the judge, the State through an assistant district attorney elected to charge Tessin with only civil OUI, that is, a civil traffic infraction for which no jail sentence may be imposed. [6] At his appearance on June 6, Tessin requested that further proceedings on the civil complaint be postponed to give him time to consult with a lawyer. Judge Benoit agreed and put off Tessin's next appearance for two days, until June 8. Judge Benoit had before him on June 6 various documents relating to the Tessin case, all of which plainly stated that Tessin was charged with only a civil traffic infraction, not with criminal OUI. The chief distinction between a civil and a criminal violation of the law is that, except in the case of civil commitment for contempt, when the contemnor carries the key of his prison in his pocket, [7] there can be no incarceration in a civil case. That distinction is basic to our system of justice. Another basic concept is that bail exists in a criminal case for the purpose of allowing a defendant to remain out of jail until the next proceeding in his case, while at the same time providing assurance, in the form of money or a bond, that he will reappear in court for that proceeding. The reasons for bail are not applicable in the case of a civil traffic infraction, because there is no imprisonment from which to set the defendant temporarily free. Accordingly, there is no authority in the law to impose bail in a civil case. Since Tessin was from Michigan, Judge Benoit feared that he would use the two-day period between June 6 and June 8 to leave the state, thereby escaping all consequences for his alleged drunken driving. Therefore, Judge Benoit imposed $300 bail, notwithstanding the foregoing undisputed and fundamental principles of law. Tessin was unable to make the bail, and so he was jailed on June 6 pending his answer to the civil complaint two days later. On June 8 Tessin was brought from the Somerset County jail to the courthouse, where he admitted the civil traffic infraction. Judge Benoit ordered him to pay a $350 fine within one month and suspended his right to drive in Maine for 45 days. To prevent Tessin from leaving Maine without paying his civil fine, Judge Benoit again unable to meet. Judge Benoit again ordered him to jail for his failure to furnish bail, but following some discussion Tessin agreed to the judge's suggestion that he instead serve off the fine in jail at $10 per day. Tessin was not represented by counsel, nor was he informed of any right to counsel. He proceeded to serve 35 days in the Somerset County jail. Would a reasonably prudent, competent judge in all the circumstances have considered Judge Benoit's actions in this case to be obviously and seriously wrong? The answer must be that he undoubtedly would. Judge Benoit in this civil case sent Tessin off to jail for 35 days without respecting any of the safeguards required by our state and federal constitutions. The most basic right of citizens of this country is to be at liberty in society. That right is so essential to our way of life that it may only be taken away by the courts following carefully prescribed procedures. Judge Benoit deprived Tessin of his fundamental right of liberty in a civil case where the judge knew or plainly ought to have known he had no authority whatever to incarcerate. Judge Benoit argues that his actions were justified by Tessin's agreement to the terms of his incarceration. What that argument ignores is that Tessin had no choice but to accept. Tessin knew that he was going to go to jail for failure to provide bail. In that situation, his only reasonable choice was to agree that his time in jail should be credited against the civil fine. When he fixed bail on June 8, the judge knew from two days earlier that Tessin would not be able to furnish bail. That clearly improper use of bail as a weapon of the State in a civil matter, rather than as a mechanism to secure a defendant's liberty, thus had the effect of directly imposing a 35-day jail sentence for a civil traffic infraction. This was an outrageous result. There was, furthermore, no authority for allowing a defendant to serve off his civil fine in jail. [8] Any reasonably prudent and competent judge would think that the jailing of Tessin in this civil case was obviously and seriously wrong because it flagrantly denied him his constitutional rights. Judge Benoit's actions in the Tessin case violated Canon 3 A(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
On the evidence before us, we find the following facts. The defendant, Mark S. Wickham, was charged with civil OUI. He admitted the civil traffic infraction in District Court (Skowhegan) on September 7, 1983. On that date Judge Benoit suspended his license for 45 days and imposed a $450 fine. The due date for payment of the fine was twice put off when Wickham appeared as required and requested additional time to make payment. Finally, on November 28, 1983, Wickham signed a document entitled Release of all Claims in which he agreed to do volunteer work in satisfaction of the fine. However, the form provided that: I understand that in no way am I under any obligation to perform or donate my time, and that I am free to withdraw from this offer at any time, and that I will not be penalized in any way if I withdraw from this offer. Wickham was assigned to do 121 hours of public service work for the sheriff's office. He completed 45½ hours of that work (originally reported as 21½ hours but later corrected) and then failed to do any more, even after the sheriff wrote to him to request that he return to work. On January 24, 1984, the District Court sent Wickham an order to appear on February 13 to prove that he had made a good faith effort to pay the fine. When Wickham appeared as required, Judge Benoit questioned him with regard to his reasons for stopping work. Because he found there was no good reason, Judge Benoit summarily adjudged Wickham in contempt of court, both for non-appearance in regard to the unpaid fine and for non-appearance at the designated job site. He sentenced Wickham to 37½ days in jail in satisfaction of the fine (later reduced when credit was given for additional time worked at the sheriff's office). After serving 11 days Wickham was released on a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Superior Court. The Committee alleges that these facts present another instance in which Judge Benoit failed to observe the most obvious limitations on his power to deprive an individual of his liberty. There is nothing in the law of Maine to authorize a judge to compel public service work as a way of satisfying a civil fine. We do not condone this unauthorized use of judicial power to get a civil defendant to agree to public service work. However, what is particularly serious is Judge Benoit's action in imprisoning Wickham when he declined to work further. The procedure followed was once again grossly deficient to accord Wickham his fundamental rights, and the imposition of a jail sentence to discharge his civil liability was patently unconstitutional. Wickham received no notice of a criminal hearing, nor was he charged with a criminal offense. Judge Benoit's order in fact left him in substantial doubt as to the reason he was being jailed. He was not provided with a lawyer because, Judge Benoit now argues, it was a civil proceeding. But the reason why no right to a lawyer attaches in a civil proceeding is that civil cases do not result in incarceration. [9] Judge Benoit also made no finding whether Wickham was honestly unable to pay the fine. [10] The clear implication from the record is that Wickham was at all times without funds. The putative justification for the incarceration, that Wickham was being held in contempt, is simply not credible. Wickham had appeared in court every time he was ordered to do so. Furthermore, there was no court order requiring him to report to the sheriff's office for work. It was patently unfair of Judge Benoit to treat the agreement as an order of court, for which Wickham could be held in contempt, when the agreement itself imposed no obligation on Wickham. It was obvious that Wickham was not guilty of either civil or criminal contempt. Wickham was jailed for his failure to discharge a civil liability of paying a civil fine, and not as punishment for violation of any court order. In short, a reasonably prudent and competent judge would have found Wickham's incarceration in the circumstances both obviously and seriously wrong. Again, Judge Benoit's action in jailing a defendant in a civil case was so patently unconstitutional as to deserve sanction. His actions in the Wickham case violated Canon 3 A(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. We reemphasize that our disapproval of Judge Benoit's actions in jailing the defendants in both the Tessin and the Wickham cases does not arise out of any mere disagreement over sentencing philosophy. At the election of the prosecutor, both Tessin and Wickham had been charged only with the civil traffic infraction of operating under the influence. That infraction carried a maximum fine of $500 and license suspension of 45 days, and no permissible imprisonment. The prosecutor, and not the District Court judge, had exclusive and unreviewable discretion to prosecute an OUI case as a crime or a civil infraction. [11] Once the prosecutor had made his civil election, the only penalty beyond a license suspension that the court was empowered to order was a civil money judgment, collectible by the State only by civil process in the same manner as a money judgment obtained by a private plaintiff. However much a judge may disagree with the district attorney's decision to treat an OUI case as merely a civil traffic infraction, he has no right to use the criminal process of imprisonment to punish a civil defendant. The Maine Legislature, with the concurrence of the Governor, created the system of prosecuting OUI as either a crime or a civil infraction, at the prosecutor's election. [12] That system represents the will of the elected representatives of the people, whose judgment it was that the public interest would thus be served. A judge is not free to disregard the application of any part of the OUI law, however much he or others may disagree with that legislative assessment of the public interest.
On the evidence before us, we find the following facts. On August 28, 1983, the Pittsfield police arrested two 13-year-old boys, Michael C. Day and John Heaton-Jones, on 14 identical charges. The juvenile intake worker released the boys to the custody of their parents. The boys were not formally charged until several months later, when they were scheduled to make their first appearance in District Court (Skowhegan) on November 30, 1983. The lawyer engaged for Michael Day entered an appearance by mail on behalf of his young client. Judge Benoit set January 9, 1984, for the adjudication hearing in Day's case, leaving him in the custody of his parents. John Heaton-Jones, however, had no lawyer and was accompanied only by his mother when he appeared before Judge Benoit at the scheduled time on November 30. The judge advised Heaton-Jones of his right to counsel and arranged for the appointment of a lawyer to represent the juvenile in subsequent proceedings. Judge Benoit took no evidence at the session with the boy and his mother. The judge set the Heaton-Jones case for hearing on January 9, 1984, the same day that was set for the co-respondent's case; but he ordered Heaton-Jones taken immediately to the Maine Youth Center in South Portland for detention pending the adjudication hearing, then nearly six weeks away. Judge Benoit entered that detention order despite the fact that Heaton-Jones's juvenile intake worker had left him in his mother's custody since August and at no time requested the judge to order detention. [13] The Heaton-Jones boy regained his freedom only through a writ of habeas corpus issued by the Superior Court on December 6, 1983. Judge Benoit's order detaining a juvenile for a period of nearly six weeks, before the boy had the assistance of counsel, and without the court's taking any evidence, ignored the most basic liberties and procedural requirements of law. The constitutional requirement of counsel at a hearing that results in the incarceration of a juvenile is beyond question. [14] Similarly, confining a juvenile without receiving any evidence whatever was inconsistent with minimal due process requirements. [15] By denying Heaton-Jones his fundamental rights, Judge Benoit committed an error that was obvious and of a most serious nature. Although Judge Benoit also failed to comply with section 3203 of the Juvenile Code, we need not consider that failure to reach our conclusion. With only the complaint before him, Judge Benoit proceeded summarily to deprive Heaton-Jones of his basic right of liberty. Such action cannot be the product of a mere oversight or of a mere misreading of the law. We find as a fact that Judge Benoit knew or clearly ought to have known that the detention of Heaton-Jones was unlawful. Moreover, Judge Benoit's actions in this case are disturbing because they demonstrate an arbitrary and unfair course of conduct. The Judge accorded radically different treatment to the two identically situated juveniles. Michael Day had an attorney to represent him, and because that attorney entered an appearance for Day in a letter to the court clerk, Judge Benoit took no action on Day's case until January 9. In contrast, Heaton-Jones, who was charged with jointly participating with Day in the same unlawful activities, appeared personally on the date he was summoned. Judge Benoit ordered him into custody, at an institution about one hundred miles away from his home, for nearly six weeks pending the January hearing. We find that a reasonably prudent and competent judge would consider that Judge Benoit's actions in this case were obviously and seriously wrong. He thus committed a sanctionable violation of Canon 3 A(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
We have carefully examined the remaining alleged instances of misconduct charged by the Committee and have found no error in them amounting to a sanctionable violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Committee challenges Judge Benoit's action in jailing Scott and Bonny Wells on March 3, 1983. [16] At a disclosure proceeding on July 15, 1982, in District Court (Farmington), the Wellses and their judgment creditor, Sherman Adams, entered into an installment payment agreement providing for weekly payments to Adams. Judge Benoit approved the settlement agreement, entitled Consent to Installment Payment Order, and filed it with the court records. When the Wellses stopped making the required payments after about five weeks, Adams filed a motion for contempt. Acting on that motion, Judge Benoit on December 16 found the Wellses in contempt of the settlement order and sentenced them to 10 days' imprisonment, based upon his belief that the Wellses had been able to make the payments to Adams but had failed to accord those payments proper priority. Upon the Wellses' representation that they would be able to pay off the entire debt in two months, Judge Benoit postponed the jail sentence until February 24, when the Wellses would be imprisoned if they had not by then paid the whole debt. The total amount of the debt was over $1,000; the aggregate amount overdue under the agreement on December 16 was less than $200. On February 24 the Wellses appeared and the matter was continued until March 3. When March 3 arrived, the Wellses had not paid the debt, so Judge Benoit sent them to jail, based solely on their failure to pay the full sum, and without providing a hearing as to their then ability to pay the entire debt. In Wells v. State, 474 A.2d 846 (Me. 1984), the Law Court reviewed on appeal the Wellses' petition for habeas corpus and concluded, based on the lack of a hearing on March 3 on their current ability to pay the debt, that Judge Benoit imprisoned them illegally. As clear as it was to the Law Court in that case that a hearing was required at the time of imprisonment, tensions between statutory provisions and the Law Court's earlier opinions may well have produced confusion as to the remedies that were available to a judgment creditor. [17] In that circumstance, we conclude that a reasonably prudent and competent judge would not have felt that incarcerating the Wellses on March 3 was obviously wrong. Judge Benoit's action was judicial error, but it was not judicial misconduct.
Finally, the Committee alleges that Judge Benoit violated the Code of Judicial Conduct in three cases by denying the defendants' motions for stay of sentence pending appeal. Those denials may have involved judicial error, but they were not instances of judicial misconduct.
On the evidence before us, we find the following facts. In District Court (Skowhegan) defendant Russell Johnston entered a plea of guilty to a charge of criminal OUI on August 29, 1983. On that date, Judge Benoit accepted Johnston's guilty plea, continued the case for sentencing until September 19, and released Johnston on personal recognizance. On September 19, 1983, Judge Benoit sentenced Johnston to serve 30 days in jail and to pay a $500 fine, and suspended his license. Johnston's attorney immediately filed a notice of appeal with Judge Benoit and requested a stay of execution of the jail sentence pending the appeal. The judge denied the requested stay. District Court Criminal Rule 38 provides: A sentence of imprisonment shall be stayed if an appeal is taken and the defendant is admitted to bail pending appeal. (Emphasis added) In this case it is beyond question that the appeal was taken, but Johnston was not admitted to bail after the imposition of sentence. District Court Criminal Rule 46 governs bail and provides in part: The defendant . . . may be admitted to bail after conviction and pending appeal. . . . (Emphasis added) Although Judge Benoit continued bail after the guilty plea, that freedom ended when the judge sentenced Johnston to jail. No later bail was ever set. Thus, Johnston was not on bail when his appeal was taken, and one condition for the stay under Rule 38 was not met. Moreover, a District Court judge would not be obviously wrong in concluding that District Court Criminal Rule 46(a) leaves to his discretion whether to grant bail pending appeal. The previous Superior Court Criminal Rule 46(a), which was identical in language to the present District Court Criminal Rule 46(a), was so interpreted by our primary Maine treatise on criminal procedure. [18] As to the standard to be applied by the trial judge in exercising that discretion, that treatise states: Generally, bail pending appeal need not be allowed if the appeal is not taken in good faith or is frivolous. [19] As applied to the Johnston case before Judge Benoit, the defendant had plead guilty and so had very limited grounds upon which to base an appeal. The 30-day sentence fell within the range allowed by law, and thus Judge Benoit could well view it as very unlikely that Johnston's appeal would succeed. In these circumstances, Judge Benoit's denial of the motion for a stay of Johnston's jail term was not conduct that a reasonably prudent and competent judge would consider obviously and seriously wrong.
On the evidence before us, we find the following facts. On May 26, 1982, defendant Everett Hall plead guilty in District Court (Skowhegan) to criminal charges of disorderly conduct and assault. For the disorderly conduct conviction, Judge Benoit sentenced Hall to pay a $300 fine by June 21, 1982, and for the assault conviction, sentenced him to serve eight days, on four consecutive weekends, in the county jail and pay a $300 fine by July 19, 1982. According to the District Court records, the bail set at the time of Hall's arrest was continued beyond sentencing only as to the disorderly conduct charge. Hall appealed and moved to stay the jail sentence and the fines. Judge Benoit denied the motion. The actions of Judge Benoit in this case do not rise to the level of a sanctionable violation of Canon 3 A(1). Examining the refusal to stay the jail sentence on the assault conviction, we note that Judge Benoit did not admit Hall to bail after sentencing in that case, and thus, as in State v. Johnston, one condition for stay pending appeal under Rule 38 was not met. In reviewing the failure to grant a stay of execution of the fines, we are faced with unsettled issues of interpretation of the rules of criminal procedure that Judge Benoit now argues permitted his action. The District Court and the Superior Court have separate sets of criminal rules. However, some District Court rules provide that procedure in the District Court will be governed by the corresponding Superior Court rule. District Court Criminal Rule 38, controlling stays of execution of payment of fines, is such a rule. Most of the Superior court rules incorporated into the District Court rules make reference to actions to be taken by the court. As applied in the District Court, the court plainly means the District Court. However, Superior Court Rule 38(b), incorporated into District Court Rule 38, states that in specified circumstances: A sentence to pay a fine . . . shall be stayed by the Superior Court. . . . Without here deciding the proper interpretation of the pertinent rules, we do recognize the existence of some question whether anyone other than a Superior Court judge could stay the execution of a District Court fine pending appeal. Thus, we cannot say that Judge Benoit's denial of the stays of the fines in State v. Hall was conduct that a reasonably prudent and competent judge would consider obviously and seriously wrong.
On the evidence before us, we find the following facts. In District Court (Skowhegan) on September 28, 1983, defendant Donald Greene admitted a charge that he had committed the civil traffic infraction of speeding. On the same day Judge Benoit sentenced him to pay a $120 fine and suspended his driver's license for 60 days. On October 4, 1983, Greene filed a notice of appeal and a request for a stay of execution of the license suspension based on District Court Civil Rule 62. Judge Benoit denied the request, stating, [The appeal] is interposed for delay only. Several days later the Superior Court entered an order staying the execution of the license suspension pending appeal. On the merits of that appeal, the Superior Court affirmed the District Court decision, but gave Greene a credit of seven days on his license suspension for that period in which defendant's license suspension should have been stayed. District Court Civil Rule 62(e), which is made applicable to civil traffic infraction cases by Rule 80F(a) of the District Court Civil Rules, provides in part: [T]he taking of an appeal from a judgment shall operate as a stay of execution upon the judgment during the pendency of the appeal.... The District Court Civil Rules thus declare that the filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case, such as State v. Greene, operates automatically to stay execution upon the judgment, without any judicial action. When Greene's attorney asked Judge Benoit to order a stay pending appeal, he sought a meaningless and needless act and implied by his request that he believed Judge Benoit had discretion in the matter. We cannot say in these circumstances that a reasonably prudent and competent judge would consider Judge Benoit's reaction to the request to be obviously and seriously wrong.