Opinion ID: 2428633
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: appearance of sitting circuit judge as a witness at trial in his own courthouse.

Text: During the course of the trial, appellant sought to discredit the 1991 will by discrediting its drafter, Alton Cannon. Appellant now complains that she was unfairly surprised when appellees were permitted to call Circuit Judge Samuel Monarch, who sits in the Breckinridge Circuit Court where this case was tried, as a character witness to rebut appellant's attacks on Mr. Cannon. Appellant asserts, inter alia, that it was improper for Judge Monarch to be permitted to testify as a witness in the very courthouse in which he was then sitting as a Circuit Judge. Appellant further complains that he had presided over the same panel of veniremen and at least two of the jurors had been jurors in a previous trial which Judge Monarch had conducted. It should be noted that Judge Monarch recused himself from participating in the instant case due to his previous relationship with Alton Cannon. Obviously it is preferable that a sitting jurist never be called upon to testify in a trial, particularly within the jurisdiction over which he presides and very particularly in front of a panel of veniremen over which he originally presided. While this Court does not agree with appellant's characterization of appellees conduct as the ultimate Home Cookin' ploy, we are in general agreement that this was a very unfortunate situation which should be avoided whenever possible. However, we find singularly uncompelling appellant's argument that she was blind-sided by Judge Monarch's surprise appearance, particularly after she placed Mr. Cannon's credibility in issue in the first place. As the trial record clearly reflects, appellant decided to attempt to denigrate Mr. Cannon's reputation in an attempt to cast the execution of the 1991 will into doubt. This was a perfectly permissible trial strategy. However, appellant cannot now speak out of the other side of her mouth and say that she had no idea that a character witness might be called to rebut her assault. Appellees are under no obligation to warn appellant of their possible response to appellant's every conceivable course of action. Under Canon 2(b) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, codified at SCR 4.300, a judge should not ... testify voluntarily as a character witness. Judge Monarch was served with a subpoena by appellees. Accordingly, he did not testify voluntarily within the meaning of Canon 2(b). Since Judge Monarch's testimony was permissible, given its relative brevity and limited scope, any error which may have occurred was certainly harmless. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. COOPER, GRAVES, JOHNSTONE, LAMBERT and STUMBO, JJ., concur. WINTERSHEIMER, J., concurs in result only.