Opinion ID: 1924710
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Temporary Assignment of the Chief Judge of the District Court to the Family Court

Text: The defendant's next contention is that the temporary assignment of the chief judge of the District Court to the Family Court was not authorized by G.L.1956 § 8-15-3, [5] which sets forth the procedural requirements for a valid temporary assignment of a judge to another court. He alleges that the procedural requirements of § 8-15-3 were not followed here, rendering void any actions taken by the Chief Judge of the District Court in the Family Court. To support this contention, defendant points to G.L.1956 §§ 8-8-7, [6] 8-8-12, [7] and 8-15-3, as evidence that the statutory scheme created by the General Assembly distinguishes between associate judges and the chief judge of the District Court, thus rendering the chief judge ineligible for assignment to another trial court by the chief justice of the Rhode Island Supreme Court. We disagree. Nothing in the plain language of § 8-15-3 indicates that the chief judge of the District Court is not also considered a judge of that court for the purposes of that statute. The fact that he has additional duties as the administrative head of a court, including [holding] court in any division when he or she deems it necessary, § 8-8-12(a)(1), does not detract from our conclusion. Additionally, § 8-15-3 provides that the power to assign judges shall be interpreted and construed liberally to accomplish the statute's goals. With this in mind, we see no reason to disqualify the chief judge of a court from the group of judges eligible for assignment simply because, if the chief judge were temporarily assigned to another court, approval by the chief judge and the assigned judge would be accomplished through one person's consent. Furthermore, we find entirely unpersuasive defendant's argument that the chief judge of the District Court's presiding over a Family Court trial constituted an action by an unauthorized judge. The defendant likens the actions here to those of a retired judge who signed a search warrant without de jure authority. See, e.g., State v. Nunez, 634 A.2d 1167, 1170 (R.I. 1993). This simile is to no avail, however, as the chief judge of the District Court had de jure authority to preside over defendant's trial pursuant to his proper assignment under § 8-15-3. Likewise, we find without merit defendant's assertion that the chief judge of the District Court's temporary assignment to the Family Court placed him in a position in which he impermissibly simultaneously held two incompatible judicial offices. The defendant cites In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 121 R.I. 64, 394 A.2d 1355 (1978), in support of this contention; however, this decision explicitly states that it does not involve the temporary assignment of a District Court judge pursuant to § 8-15-3 because such an assignment is solely to aid in the prompt disposition of judicial business and does not cause the appointed judge to take a new office or to change courts. Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 121 R.I. at 66 n. 3, 394 A.2d at 1356 n. 3. Therefore, we conclude that the chief judge of the District Court's temporary assignment to the Family Court was valid; he was properly assigned under § 8-15-3.